geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-2161) [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:25:54 GMT
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.

John
>> --jason
>
> Jacek
>


Mime
View raw message