geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anita kulshreshtha <a_kuls...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-2161) [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:25:57 GMT
   I would also prefer to see any changes to improve the
maintainability  and user friendliness of M2 build be held off until
the server assembly is functional. 

Thanks
Anita

--- David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:25 AM, John Sisson wrote:
> 
> > Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >> On 7/3/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> >>> NOTE... the m2 build in trunk is already broken... this patches
> help
> >>> FIX MANY OF THOSE PROBLEMS!
> >>
> >> NOTED, but... it's not broken. it has never worked so we can
> pretend
> >> to call it broken. It's a small, but important point we cannot
> >> dismiss.
> >>
> >>> Since the official build is still m1 and this will not affect the
> m1
> >>> build, I don't see why your point about breakage is applicable at
>  
> >>> all.
> >> ...
> >>> When I first created the m1 build for Geronimo years ago there
> were
> >>> certainly a few moments of breakage due to build changes, but
> since
> >>> there was no commit by committee junk going on then it was easy
> to
> >>> just fix when things happened to get a bit askew.
> >>>
> >>> The branch idea was just to make it easier to actually make  
> >>> progress,
> >>> as I am move on this stuff way way faster than the lot of you can
> >>> react to emails and JIRAs which often (as this one did) need
> several
> >>> sets of emails to clarify.
> >>
> >> That's the point in RTC - discussing, discussing, over and over  
> >> again.
> >> I'm not in favour of RTC, but some of its rules are fine. It
> fosters
> >> discussions we lacked. That's the main point of RTC. Isn't it
> funny
> >> that you've mentioned it as an argument against RTC?
> >>
> >> What's wrong with committing changes made in the branch back to
> trunk
> >> once they've been tested? My proposal is not to wait until the
> >> migration is done, but rather apply it in small portions,
> gradually.
> >> It should work, shouldn't it? I'd greatly appreciate your comment
> on
> >> it as I guess I don't see the whole picture and keep thinking the
> >> branch might help when others have already seen it would fall
> short.
> >>
> > Can we avoid the concerns that have been aired regarding svn  
> > merging issues when directories are reorganised by leaving the  
> > reorganization of directories as a last phase of the m2 migration?
> >
> > I would have thought that we could move further along with the  
> > migration without reorganizing directories (AFAIK, maven should be 
> 
> > able to work with existing directory structures, although doing so 
> 
> > may incur more work).  We would also need to coordinate the  
> > reorganization of directories with the owners of other branches  
> > from trunk, to minimize the impact on them.
> 
> I would prefer to wait to reorganize the directories until after the 
> 
> work in the dead-1.2 branch is merged with trunk.  I plan to go back 
> 
> to this activity now.  Other committers may wish to note that merging
>  
> the work in dead-1.2 should not need RTC as it is already part of a  
> main development line.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> >
> > John
> >>> --jason
> >>
> >> Jacek
> >>
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message