geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Lets start moving to m2
Date Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:12:42 GMT
I've found that for moderate patches (e.g. for the console which is
already in a different place in trunk than 1.1) it's reasonably easy
to just edit the file path in the patch file before attempting to
apply it.  It won't be a thrill, but it's manageable.

Thanks,
     Aaron

On 6/28/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> > If we do move things around in trunk, will it make merging changes
> > made in the 1.1 branch more difficult?
>
> Most likely... not sure how well SVN tracks changes and then merges
> back from branches after bits have been moved about.
>
> <soapbox>
> I know that Perforce would be able to handle these types of merges...
> </soapbox>
>
> Basically it will mean that files will need to be merged one by one
> explicitly, not using the recursive mechanism.
>
>
> > If so, how important is it to move things now and would there be a
> > better time to do it, e.g. when 1.1.1 is released?
>
> Well, I believe it is important... moderately important.  We
> eventually need to bite the bullet and make these changes, which will
> cause some additional work when merging due to the way that SVN
> works.  It is work that must be done at some time, and I think that
> the sooner the better.
>
> Its not just the organization of the module's files... but also the
> organization of the modules themselves.  IMO we MUST do both to take
> the most advantage out of the new m2 build system.
>
> I can't stress enough that the current layout was designed around
> m1.  m2 is quite different with respect to the rules that apply when
> organizing.
>
> I'm not sure that delaying these changes will making anything
> easier.  It may reduce work by 5-10% in the short-term but will
> probably increase work in the long run if we keep delaying to keep
> merges simple.  If we really want to keep merges simple, then we
> should use Perforce, which actually handles incremental merging and
> can handle any arbitrary branching and handle full integration
> history when merging back off of branches of branches.  Sorry, back
> on the soapbox again... but really IMo there is no better SCM than
> Perforce for large projects that need advanced branching and merging.
>
> --jason
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message