harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fedotov, Alexei A" <alexei.a.fedo...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [classlib] Preprocessor - CHECKPOINT
Date Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:55:25 GMT
>Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first,
>before spending too much time on looking for a solution.

+1
This exactly matches my morning metro thoughts. Nathan, thanks for
catching this point.

With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nathan Beyer [mailto:nbeyer@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:06 AM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor - CHECKPOINT
>
>What's the concern about just using the prescribed branching pattern
>for SVN? There are some other nice tricks like "externals" for pulling
>in common files into the working copies of other branches (ala the
>'concurrent' code in 'standard' that's pulled into 'enhanced' on
>checkout). I would propose we at least attempt to go down a path of
>investigating a branching.
>
>Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first,
>before spending too much time on looking for a solution. For example,
>if logging is a real requirement, but everyone agrees it can be done
>via instrumentation (AspectJ, java.lang.instrument, etc), then are
>there any other requirements that affect the actual source files
>internally? If not, then could all of the other requirements be
>fulfilled by judicious SCM use?
>
>So, I would suggest we back up a little and just layout all of the
>requirements first, so we can make sure everyone's in agreement about
>the needs.
>
>-Nathan
>
>On 10/31/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> So we all agree that it's not an ideal solution.
>>
>> Can anyone think of anything else?  No one said this was going to be
>easy...
>>
>> geir
>>

Mime
View raw message