forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thors...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r367799 - /forrest/branches/dispatcher/
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:09:24 GMT
El mié, 11-01-2006 a las 10:12 +0100, Cyriaque Dupoirieux escribió:
> Hi,
> 
> I wander why we need a branch whereas there is not yet a delivery ?
> Since the 0.8-dev is not yet released, I think we can continue in the same branch (HEAD)
as we already did with the dispatcher v2.

I agree but when I started v3 people suggested to do it in a branch.

> If some - like me - wants to help with the v3 of the dispatcher, we don't have to change
of branch.

Yeah, further more since I see Ross point in a "full" copy of the trunk,
I see it a waste of disk space to copy 100% when I actually just change
<5%.

> If some wants to continue with the stable version, they keep on with the current org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view.
> 
> I don't think we are much to work with the two following plugins :
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.structurer
> org.apache.forrest.plugin.output.themer

Hmm, I do not know. I think e.g. Kevin is using those plugins. Further
more there are stable and represent
org.apache.forrest.plugin.internal.view2. They are the second edition of
the prototype. So I would just leave them like this and create "just
other view/dispatcher" plugins. This time the first implementation. 

> 
> so Thorsten may update these with his latest devs.
> 

The problem is that it will break trunk if I do for the pelt theme since
I did not yet updated all contracts used by pelt. All used by common are
updated and would work but pelt will throw exceptions.


> WDYT ?
> 

IMO we can do what you suggested or just create the final dispatcher
plugins (like I did in the branch) in the trunk and leave v1 and v2 in
our trunk till we have pelt contracts working with the dispatcher. If we
have we make an announcement that v1 and v2 will be removed before the
release of current trunk and not supported afterward.

How does that sound?

salu2

> Cyriaque,
> 
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> 
> El mar, 10-01-2006 a las 22:18 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
> 
>   
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
>     
> 
> Author: thorsten
> Date: Tue Jan 10 13:36:57 2006
> New Revision: 367799
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=367799&view=rev <http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=367799&view=rev>
> Log:
> Creation of the dispatcher refactoring branch
> 
> Added:
>    forrest/branches/dispatcher/
>       
> 
>         I'm a little confused here. This is not a branch, it is a new
>         directory within the branches repository.
> 
> What are you intending on doing in here and why is it not a true branch?
> 
> Ross
>     
> 
>   
> 
>     It is not a true branch because I will change 5% of the trunk.
> 
> I have copied the related resources into the branch and renamed them.
> 
> Now I can
>   
> 
>     ln -s them with the trunk again. It is like I am working with the
>     trunk but
> 
> doing the editing in the dispatcher branch. This way we do not have to
> merge the branch, because the resulting work will replace all
> view/dispatcher related work of the trunk.
> 
> I thought I should use a branch for it. That is what you suggested the
>   
> 
>     other time (or better said I understood).
> 
> Is there a problem with the chosen method?
>   
> 
> I did suggest a *branch*, but this is not a branch.
> 
> I foresee a few problems:
> 
> 
> 1) Non standard use of SVN therefore difficult to trace what is actually 
> done (especially historically) 2) "ln -s" does not work on windows 
> platforms, therefore a number of devs are prevented from participating 
> (even as testers) 3) The "branch" already has a directory structure that 
> is different from trunk (samples) How much of a problem these will 
> become I am not sure, but at the very least (2) is working against the 
> community.
> 
> Ross
> 
> 
-- 
thorsten

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


Mime
View raw message