commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [digester] plugins patch - how best to post for review?
Date Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:58:22 GMT

On 26 Mar 2004, at 21:45, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:

> Quoting Simon Kitching <>:
>> Hi,
>> I've got a significant patch ready for Digester's plugins module.
>> It refactors the existing code that currently locates the dynamic 
>> rules
>> for a plugin into a Strategy pattern with a number of predefined
>> strategies matching the old code.
>> The patch also fixes a number of outstanding issues, particularly to 
>> do
>> with hard-wired xml attribute names.
>> I'm wondering what the best thing to do with all this is.
>> Posting the diffs to the list will be real ugly.
>> As I'm the only developer currently working on the plugins stuff, and 
>> it
>> has never been in an official release, I think it might be easiest if 
>> I
>> just define a tag (so we have a point of comparison and a rollback
>> option) then commit my changes to the plugins package. Is this ok with
>> everyone? If so, any suggestions on tag naming?
>> I'm still a few days away from being ready 100% ready, so no rush..
>> Regards,
>> Simon
> Simon,
> Your best bet would be a branch, not just a tag.  That way, you can do 
> the
> development in parallel on your branch, and we can (if we like it at 
> the end)
> merge into the HEAD when we're satisfied.  Robert is doing something 
> similar on
> Betwixt.
> As for a name, something like "DIGESTER_PLUGIN_REFACTORING_BRANCH" or 
> something
> would be good -- it includes both the name of the component the branch 
> is for
> (since we all share the same repository) and makes it clear that this 
> is a
> branch tag, not just a marker tag.


- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message