forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thors...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] rollback
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:32:06 GMT
Done.

BTW using --force for svn is evil because it will haunt you! ;-) I
needed to delete a contract that I once added/modified with --force. 

Log:
cd
$FORREST_HOME/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view
svn merge -r HEAD:280939
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view
cd
$FORREST_HOME/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
svn merge -r HEAD:280939
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml

Further development (and changes happened to the plugins after -r280939)
will happen (are) in 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.themes
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/forrest/trunk/whiteboard/plugins/org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.structurer

The views plugin are now stable.

More information about approach taken to do the rollback:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2

salu2

El jue, 29-09-2005 a las 23:23 +0200, Thorsten Scherler escribió:
> I reverted the plugins and keep working on the new plugins till we
> settle this discussion about branching or not.
> 
> That makes user and dev using views like they were used to do before.
> 
> salu2
> 
> El jue, 29-09-2005 a las 10:46 +1000, David Crossley escribió:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > Diwaker Gupta wrote:
> > > >Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>>Added two new plugins for
> > > >>>refactoring views into the core:
> > > >>>- structurer
> > > >>>- themes
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Recent changes to views with using jxtg as core component
> > > >>>made the old view plugins unusable (FOR-675)
> > > >>>which can not longer stay like this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I recommend to rollback:
> > > >>>- org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view
> > > >>>- org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.viewHelper.xhtml
> > > >>>to revision -r280939 and then commit them back as views head.
> > > >
> > > >Why can't we just roll back trunk to a stable version, and move the 
> > > >views/xhtml2 work to a new branch? I think thats much neater, and easier

> > > >both on devs and users alike. People can hack away on the views/xhtml2

> > > >branch without having to worry about breaking trunk for someone.
> > > 
> > > +1
> > > 
> > > In fact this is exactly what we agreed in the IRC session:
> > > 
> > > Sep 19 11:17:31 <tscherler>	- we should get the xhtml2 and view internal

> > > together
> > > Sep 19 11:18:03 <tscherler>	- xhtml2 should be merged into the internal

> > > views stuff, simply replace the docuemnt2html part
> > > Sep 19 11:18:42 <tscherler>	- x2 plugin should provide xdocs2x2 
> > > convertion
> > > Sep 19 11:19:17 <tscherler>	- views should work with x2 input
> > > Sep 19 11:21:15 <tscherler>	- we need to write a x2 to xhtml plugin
> > > Sep 19 11:21:52 <tscherler>	that should be basically a bunch of contracts
> > > Sep 19 11:22:19 <tscherler>	roadmap:
> > > Sep 19 11:22:31 <tscherler>	1) create new branch
> > > Sep 19 11:22:48 <tscherler>	2) move view stuff and x2 stuff into core
> > > Sep 19 11:23:10 <tscherler>	3) resolving by both only allowed through
lm
> > > Sep 19 11:23:37 <tscherler>	4) create xdocs2x2 plugin
> > > Sep 19 11:24:10 <tscherler>	5) create x2 to xhtml plugin
> > > Sep 19 11:24:41 <tscherler>	in this branch all skins are removed
> > > Sep 19 11:24:52 <tscherler>	only view is supported
> > > Sep 19 11:25:19 <tscherler>	skin pipes are to be refactored to output

> > > xhtml2
> > 
> > Hold on. That IRC discussion was extremely rushed at the end.
> > We did not make any decisions there. Someone was going to make
> > a proposal. Are you sure that a branch is the way to do this?
> > Branches tend to become islands of lone development, and when
> > they go on for too long, become hard to merge.
> > 
> > How will this branch be merged? I see some confusing quick
> > comments in that IRC log, but no resolution.
> > 
> > The thing that really frightens me is the comment
> > "in this branch all skins are removed". Perhaps that is
> > what is needed, but we must decide and not just an offhand
> > comment in an IRC log.
> > 
> > What was wrong with Thorsten's proposal to cease work
> > on the old plugins and create new plugins?
> > 
> > -David
-- 
thorsten

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


Mime
View raw message