Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <454A05C6.1090809@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:50:46 -0500
From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor - CHECKPOINT
References: <8E389A5F2FEABA4CB1DEC35A25CB39CE694EF8@mssmsx411>
	 <bc79dd600610310010w155a97f4wd99deab516187c7a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45470FA5.2000801@gmail.com>
	 <bc79dd600610310117j5bb0903ds509f0d854845477e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45473BA9.1070709@gmail.com>
	 <bc79dd600610310412w6b7a64dfo3c4758ddb14409c0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45474144.5060108@pobox.com>
 <4547431C.5080000@pobox.com>	 <fc2fc95c0611020559v4a00c7a2rc11814dfa4b1e7ae@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4549FAE2.4030606@pobox.com>
 <fc2fc95c0611020630h4827ec6aj875ca9f017b24191@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fc2fc95c0611020630h4827ec6aj875ca9f017b24191@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Sian January wrote:
> I believe that in CVS when you make a branch there's nothing in it to 
> begin with, so if you check out code from the branch it looks the same 
> as code in head.  Then if a change is made in a file in head and that 
> file hasn't been changed in the branch that change is reflected in the 
> branch.  My understanding is that SVN is based on CVS so I think it 
> should work the same way.  

Nope.

There is really no such thing as a branch or tag in SVN.  It's just a 
copy.  I think it's the feature I miss most from CVS.

> So my point was that if it's only a small 
> number of classes that are branched then integrating fixes shouldn't be 
> that problematic.  Please feel free to correct me if any of those 
> assumptions are wrong.
>  
> Just thinking about J2ME, I can imagine that some source files are going 
> to be very different.  For example there are no Java 5 features in J2ME, 
> so any generic classes will have to be almost completely different.  My 
> concern is that trying to combine two quite different classes in the 
> same file is going be very difficult to read and understand.

Right.  I don't know the first thing about ME.  Maybe we should come up 
w/ use cases based on Java 6 (as we're going to do it at some point) and 
work from there.

geir

>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Sian
> 
> 
> On 02/11/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com 
> <mailto:geir@pobox.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Sian January wrote:
>      > I may be totally off track here, but how about just having two copies
>      > of all the files that differ?  I don't believe it would be that many,
>      > and it would save us from having complicated source files or
>     having to
>      > use special tools or special IDE plug-ins.  For me the value of
>     having
>      > clearly readable source code and being able to use an IDE out of
>     the box
>      > outweighs any extra effort there may be with this solution.
> 
>     Because I think that still means we have separate branches, and thus
>     the
>     integration problem for fixes.
> 
>     geir
> 
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      >
>      > Sian
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On 31/10/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <geir@pobox.com
>     <mailto:geir@pobox.com>
>      > <mailto:geir@pobox.com <mailto: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
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > --
>      > Sian January
>      >
>      > IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sian January
> 
> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK