geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <>
Subject Re: SVN Branches
Date Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:31:54 GMT

On Nov 4, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> It is covered in the subversion book
>>> Can understand why you would want to branch for security, but I 
>>> think you should keep working on your deployment stuff in the main 
>>> trunk.
>> If it's easy to fold back in, why not do in a branch?  There's 
>> clearly a difference of opinion here, one in which both sides feel 
>> pretty strongly.  Out of respect and courtesy, why not do in a branch 
>> if the downside costs of having to bring it back to trunk are so low?
> If there are differences they should be aired on this list.  I see 
> this as a back channel to not have Aaron implement a feature everyone 
> liked except Jeremy.

They are being aired on the list.  Doing the code in a branch (which 
seems to have no real extra cost) is also as transparent as can be.  
With no added work, with everything in public, how is this a "back 
channel", and how would this prevent, discourage or otherwise influence 
Aaron to not implement anything he wishes?

>> It's rather traditional in some other projects I've been in to 
>> demonstrate contrary ideas in a way that guarantees good exposure to 
>> the community, with little disruption.
> For a stable project that is not under active development, I 
> understand, but everything in geronimo is changing quickly.  Should I 
> have implemented disabled gbeans in another branch?  Should Alan 
> implement CORBA in a branch?  Since this is the first time for someone 
> to branch, I suspicious of the motivations.

You might then suggest what my motivations would be for trying to 
diffuse this in a way that everything can be done in the open.


> -dain
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message