geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-2161) [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:01:05 GMT

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
>>
>


Mime
View raw message