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 10:16:03 GMT
El mié, 11-01-2006 a las 08:36 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> > El mar, 10-01-2006 a las 22:18 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
> > 
> >>thorsten@apache.org wrote:
> >>
> >>>Author: thorsten
> >>>Date: Tue Jan 10 13:36:57 2006
> >>>New Revision: 367799
> >>>
> >>>URL: 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)
> 

Hmm, all is in the svn history (see commit mails) but yeah in different
branches.

> 2) "ln -s" does not work on windows platforms, therefore a number of 
> devs are prevented from participating (even as testers)

Yeah, that is indeed a problem. There is cygwin but we cannot force
people to use it or linux. Point taken.

> 3) The "branch" already has a directory structure that is different from 
> trunk (samples)
> 

That is not a problem, it only forces to merge parts. Like said I never
intended to "svn merge" but rather "svn cp" when finished the rewrite in
the branch. 

> How much of a problem these will become I am not sure, but at the very 
> least (2) is working against the community.
> 

yeah agree, so what do you suggest? Like said I do not see the point in
a 100% copy if I change <5%.

> Ross
> 

salu2
-- 
thorsten

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


Mime
View raw message