forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [HEADSUP] v2 will be not working anymore
Date Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:15:49 GMT
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> El sáb, 17-12-2005 a las 11:25 -0800, Mark Eggers escribió:
>>I don't know how comfortable you are with subversion. 
>>Wouldn't a branch be good for this?

We have discussed branching many times recently. This is a perfect 
situation for branching.

We have agreed we want a stable trunk.

A stable trunk means this should be done in a branch and then merged. 
This is an ideal candidate for a branch. You know it will break things, 
you know where the end point is and you know that other devs are trying 
to keep up with things.

Of course, doing it all local and committing when ready is also an 
option, but then you remove the opportunity for others to contribute if 
they have the itch.

> Yes, I generally agree to use a branch for radical changes which
> interfere with a unknown quantity of components. Since one of the aims
> of the dispatcher is to provide enhanced maintenance behavior there is
> actually no need to create a whole copy of forrest when we are changing
> 1% of the code. 

That is on of the major advantages of svn over cvs. When you branch and 
use "svn switch" you only create copies of the files that change. 
everything else remains the same. Switching between a branch and trunk 
is extremely quick.

> To "just" create v3 was much more efficient and demonstrates the
> strength of the dispatcher. 

And using these version numbers is getting very confusing and 
misleading. You are using major version numbers and we haven't even 
moved out of whiteboard yet. It should really be 0.3 and why use the "v" 
when it is no longer acalled views.

All this is just confusing.

>>I'm thinking, branch, hack, test, merge.  


> Actually I was faster. ;-) There is v3 in the trunk which is working
> with the new dispatcher transformer. I have not announced it because
> till now it supports only the common theme and not yet the pelt theme
> (we need to port the remaining contracts to v3). Another point is that I
> want to base v3 on xhtml2 documents instead of xdocs. I am working ATM
> on this.

Oh, well... for future reference I am with Mark on this one (as I was 
when you started the v2 work).



View raw message