forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <>
Subject Re: Merging locationmap with trunk [was: Merging views with trunk]
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:07:06 GMT
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 08:33 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
> >>Now to the road-map I see for views and the lm-branch:
> >>1) Fix all issues with the lm in the lm-branch (there are just minor
> >>ones that I am aware of)
> >>2) merge all lm related stuff with trunk (branch->trunk)
> >>3) merge all view changes into whiteboard trunk (branch->trunk) That
> >>step is and should be independent from step 2, it is only after this
> >>step because we now have 1 contract that is based on the lm stuff.
> >>4) *Stop* and freeze developing the view plugins in trunk!!!
> >>5) Open view-branch and start to integrate views into the core
> > 
> > 
> > I think the only issue with the locationmap branch that I can find is
> > FOR-554.  With the suggested workaround that I describe below, I think
> > we can take that off the list for now and allow the branch to go ahead
> > and be merged.


> The actual merge is going to be complex though. 


I will happily merge the stuff. Actually not too much have changed.

> When the views were 
> brought over there was a partial merge of the tree so there and now it 
> appears that people don't want it to go back into trunk.


>>2) merge all lm related stuff with trunk (branch->trunk)
> >>3) merge all view changes into whiteboard trunk (branch->trunk)

It is like this because your are right I merged the whiteboard plugins
from trunk to locationmap_branch. That means this plugins need to be
treated different from the rest. IMO we need to split the merge into
view-merge and rest-merge. That's it. ...and thinking about it, it
should be reverted (3 then 2) because then we can merge the rest

> I don't want to tackle this until I have a good couple of hours to focus 
> on it. I doubt that will be until the tail end of next week.

I will prepare a vote.

> > 2) I've come to understand that we need a more robust location
> > resolution error handling capability (as described in another post
> > that apparently wasn't well received).  It basically said that we
> > should ultimately be reporting in error messages all locations that
> > were searched for a resource rather than whatever happens to be in the
> > "otherwise" clause.

the "only" thing we need to do is write a sitemap matcher listener to
store all tried locations in a bean and the parse it in the
stacktrace. ...makes sense?

> What do you mean "apparently wasn't well received"? I don't recall any 
> objections. In our community that means people are either neutral or 
> like the idea, it means thay have nothing else to add. I'm not sure how 
> you will do some of the more advanced stuff (like say we checked here, 
> here and there, at least not without hard coding that info) but I agree 
> we can do at least improve on what we already have.
> > This, of course, also assumes that everyone agreed that for now we
> > should revert the fresh-site dependency on views until they're ready
> > to come out of whiteboard.
> Yes, Thorsten says he wants views to go into their own branch.

Yeah, after the merge with the trunk.

> > Anyway, as I said, I don't mean to come across pushy on this
> > locationmap branch but I think it's ready to merge and shouldn't grow
> > moldy.

Yeah, thanks for the headsup. ;-) Was not at all pushy.

> You are doing the right thing. Right now there are only the two of us 
> active on Locationmaps I'm busy with other things for a short while and 
> so you are left on your own to keep things moving. This is not at all 
> pushy, but *exactly* what we, as a community want, If we don;t like your 
> proposal we can always say no.

Actually I am playing with the travesable generator, but have not check
in anything yet. I hope to add an example how I understood nicola on the
weekend (per dir view feature). He can then correct/enhance/clarify
it ;-)

> Ross

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)

View raw message