forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] merge locationmap branch with trunk
Date Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:41:22 GMT
Tim Williams wrote:
> On 6/24/05, Ross Gardler <> wrote:


>>We do prefer a stable trunk. Your concerns are valid and appropriate.
>>(it seems I called this vote to early, sorry, I should have discussed
>>first - never mind we are discussing now).
> There isn't an issue because of the subject of your vote --
> locationmap's alone would likely be fairly smooth merging.  It's that
> the merging of locationmap has been unnecessarily bound to something
> happening with views that is the problem.  In other words,
> locationmaps is cooked enough to merge by itself.  Is there no way to
> merge just the locationmap stuff while views get more fleshing out?

Personally, I think the current state of views is good enough for Trunk 
(if we address the fresh-site issue). I've started to use it for a new 
project, that's what I usually use as my yardstick. Lets see what others 

> I thought I'd read that views weren't going to get deployed until you
> guys had a chance to review them at ApacheCon?  If they're in fact
> ready, then that would make things simpler.

Did we say that? I can't remember. I'd be willing to revisit that 
decision now that I have played with views a little, and more 
importantly we have some docs and a sample "skin" that works.

>>I'd like (meaning it is my itch)
>>to have the build target site do things like ask the user for the
>>project name and other config values. Thus the various config files that
>>the user needs to edit to get started are already customised for them.
>>Some of these questions are different for skins than they are for views
>>(skins = what skin? Which search box? where put it? etc., views = which
>>default view? which CSS? etc.)


> Someone mentioned that a while back and I played around with using
> ant's input and replaceregexp but I later removed it because it's a
> pain if you just want to quickly seed a new site for testing.  
> The
> lesson learned is that if it's interactive it should also have a
> non-interactive mode too -- which I didn't do.  

I hadn't thought of that, but it triggered another requirement in my 
mind, which happens to provide a solution.

We will need a seeedTestSite target with no user interaction because 
"./build test" seeds a new site and builds it as part of its tests. Devs 
could also use that target for quick tests. Looking even further into 
the future this could form the basis of an automated test suite. 
Something I think is becoming increasingly important for Forrest.

> Unfortunately, based on what I alluded to earlier, I don't like the
> idea of it going in the locationmap branch personally.  I like the
> idea of the lm branch being functionally consistent with its original
> purpose instead of an all-purpose whiteboard.  

Well the reason Thorsten moved views into the branch was that he needed 
the Locationmap code for some of the newer features of views, he new 
there would be a good few months before the branch was merged because we 
were ramping up for the 0.7 release. I wouldn't call it an "all purpose 
whiteboard", if he hadn't gone into the branch he would be in trunk anyway.

> I guess the
> simple targets could be added painlessly enough but the more
> interactive stuff is what I'm referring to.  The targets would ease my
> concern of having to do additional stuff to the trunk to make it work.

Well those targets are the start of the interactive stuff. Lets not over 
design things, lets do it in an incremental style. With that in mind I'm 
going to be leave this thread alone to give folks a chance to catch up, 
we have come a long way in a short time in this thread.


View raw message