geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: m2migration branch - thoughts?
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:35:20 GMT
I need someway to move forward... RTC with a ton of patches waiting  
for votes just isn't working.

So, if we can not commit to trunk, we need to find a way to  
effectively merge from branches so that development can actually use  
the source control system to manage work and effectively share that  
work with others so they can really see what is going on with  
relative ease.

Or do away with this RTC mess which IMO has proven itself to be non- 
functional in our environment with only PMC votes counting.  Or do  
away with the PMC and make all votes count, or make everyone a PMC  
member, or... anything to move forward... futzing or not.

:-P

--jason


On Jul 5, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> Please excuse my shout.  :)
>
> ARE WE REALLY CONSIDERING FUTZING WITH SVK FOR THE M2  
> CONVERISON!?!??!?!
>
> Whew!  That felt good.  So, we've decided to make an already  
> complex job even more complex and obtuse?  Quite frankly, IMHO, and  
> put in the most genteel tone, that's just crazy talk.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2006, at 12:43 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> I found it invaluable to track my work locally and be able to  
>>> merge in trunk changes and produce patches, but IIRC none of the  
>>> patches I produced could be applied by patch.  So, it would  
>>> probably help single developers but might not improve  
>>> communication or enable review.
>>
>> I just re-read this... why were the patches you produced not able  
>> to be applied?
>>
>> Did SVK generate bunk patches?
>>
>>  * * *
>>
>> From what I have read so far, I *think* that using SVK *might*  
>> work to perform the branch sync'ing.
>>
>> I'm going to test it out tomorrow; something like....
>>
>> Create a faux-trunk and branch to test with and not taint the real  
>> trunk or branch:
>>
>> svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk https:// 
>> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/svkmerge/trunk
>> svn cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/svkmerge/ 
>> trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/svkmerge/ 
>> m2migration
>>
>> Then I'm going to setup SVK to mirror both of these new  
>> branches... which I think ends up looking like:
>>
>> svk cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/svkmerge/ 
>> trunk trunk
>> svk cp https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/svkmerge/ 
>> m2migration m2migration
>>
>> But, I'm only going to use SVK to sync... not apply changes, so I  
>> will apply the GERONIMO-2161 patch to https://svn.apache.org/repos/ 
>> asf/geronimo/sandbox/svkmerge/m2migration and then commit with SVN
>>
>> Then sync the SVK mirrors...
>>
>> And then smerge m2migration to trunk with SVK (svk push).  Should  
>> also be able to test smerge trunk to m2migration to test how  
>> branch refreshing works (svk pull).
>>
>> Found this email which leads me to believe that this will work:
>>
>>     http://rt.openfoundry.org/Foundry/Project/Forum/List.html/wws/ 
>> arc/svk-dev/2005-02/msg00035.html
>>
>> I might ping folks in #svk on freenode too and see what they have  
>> to say about using SVK in this manner.
>>
>> --jason
>


Mime
View raw message