Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733)
In-Reply-To: <0470B72C-287A-45D3-9950-2FEEA8611B22@apache.org>
References: <430A6B4A.7050504@gmail.com> <430B9665.8000005@gmail.com>
 <0470B72C-287A-45D3-9950-2FEEA8611B22@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <637DD178-5AE0-4E62-8310-5AAA2142B944@apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geirm@apache.org>
Subject: Re: tooling patches
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:43:25 -0400
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Also, why is the plugin code structured as it is?

/Users/geir/dev/apache/geronimo/trunk/sandbox/eclipse-plugin $ ls
org.apache.geronimo.core                 
org.apache.geronimo.feature             org.apache.geronimo.ui
org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model    org.apache.geronimo.runtime.v1

Any reason why we couldn't have a conventional structure of a source  
directory and a build file and such? :)

geir

On Aug 24, 2005, at 6:38 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Patches?  We don't need no steenkeeng patches...
>
> 884 - please resubmit and grant ASF license
> 885 - I couldn't get this to apply successfully.  I'm not sure  
> why.  Most chunks failed.
> 888 - done
> 907 - failed like 885.  I figured I'm doing something wrong, but  
> it's just not obvious.
>
> geir
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
>
>
>> Add 907 to the list.  Thanks.
>>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Would one of the committers mind checking in the patches for  
>>> 884,885, and 888?  I'm making changes on source files that  
>>> already have existing pending patches in these jiras and don't  
>>> want to introduce new patches until their checked to avoid  
>>> conflicts when merging.  For my knowledge, how is this handled?  
>>> Are cumulative patches easily handled?  i.e What happens if i  
>>> have Patch-A based on revision 1 on File-A.  Then I introduce  
>>> Patch-B on File-A also based on revision 1 (but includes changes  
>>> that went into Patch A).  Since both of the patches are based on  
>>> the same revision # I would assume that only one of the patches  
>>> can be applied without errors or conflicts.  What happens when  
>>> the second patch is applied since the patch is no longer based on  
>>> the revision specified in the patch file? If the second patch  
>>> cannot be applied, how is one expected to know which patch to  
>>> throw out?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Sachin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org