geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <>
Subject Re: m2migration branch is available
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:54:57 GMT
Hey, no worries.  I don't have the spare cycles to work on the M2
migration myself, so whatever method you guys think is best, I'm all
for it.  I just wanted to make sure you're prepared for some pain down
the road if you go the branch path, beacuse I think it will be nasty.

If I were doing this work, I think I'd want to escape RTC to do it --
perhaps by freezing development on trunk, working on a branch, then
voting to replace trunk with branch under the rules for
revolutionaries.  Or by getting the PMC to bless working on M2 in
trunk without RTC applying to the M2 changes.  Or by getting the PMC
to +1 the principle and leave you free to implement the specifics as
needed.  Or by claiming that the M2 build is broken and that's clearly
a bug and therefore you can do all this work under CTR for bug fixes.

Again, if you think you can be equally productive working in a branch
and then generating an RTC patch and applying it back to trunk, more
power to you, and don't let me stand in the way.  :)


On 7/5/06, Jacek Laskowski <> wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <> wrote:
> > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a
> > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch
> > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple
> > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I
> > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that).
> ...
> > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the
> > branch plan.  In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a
> > commercial source control system would be better.  Perhaps that means
> > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address
> > my concern before taking this approach.
> (It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed at me).
> I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I
> paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not
> need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch
> and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of
> the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might
> eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually
> once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap
> where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able
> to be committed to trunk. It may work.
> I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going
> to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-))
> >     Aaron
> Jacek
> --
> Jacek Laskowski

View raw message