forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Merging locationmap with trunk [was: Merging views with trunk]
Date Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:33:12 GMT
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.

Your workaround is a good one. I also note you are working with the 
Cocoon community to solve the problem in a more permanent way. Please 
provide a patch for your workaround, I will apply it early next week 
(out of office until then).

The actual merge is going to be complex though. 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.


View raw message