geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-2161) [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:49:56 GMT
What "user friendliness" are you talking about?


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 <> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:25 AM, John Sisson wrote:
>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/06, Jason Dillon <> wrote:
>>>>> NOTE... the m2 build in trunk is already broken... this patches
>> help
>>>> 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

View raw message