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 Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:15:03 GMT
Please ignore this.. (hit send accidentally)

Anita

--- anita kulshreshtha <a_kulshre@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> 
> > What "user friendliness" are you talking about?
> > 
> > --jason
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:25 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> > 
> > >    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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


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

Mime
View raw message