xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Peter B. West" <pbw...@powerup.com.au>
Subject Re: handling patches
Date Sat, 02 Nov 2002 13:23:18 GMT
Victor,
...

Victor Mote wrote:
> Victor Mote wrote:
> 
> 
>>If it is not feasible to unify significant portions of the two branches,
>>either by switching them in the repository or by putting them into one
>>branch, then I propose that we clarify our terminology by using the term
>>"rewrite" instead of "redesign". This would signal that we are not merely
>>rebuilding an important module, but that the changes are
>>pervasive, and that
>>the old code has been effectively abandoned.
> 
> 
> Upon further consideration, I would also recommend that, in the above case,
> we actually put the code into two different projects.

I don't see that anything would be gained, and much would be lost.

>   Branches imply
> eventual merging,

Not necessarily.

>  and I think that is part of what has been confusing me.   By
> cutting that tie, it would be clear that there will be no merging. Right
> now, we are kind of half in and half out, and it would be good to signal
> whatever decision is reached definitively, mostly for the benefit of those
> of us (me) who are slow to catch on.

I'm sorry, Victor, but this makes no sense to me at all.  It's the same 
project, and its future lies with the redesign (not rewrite, as I 
pointed out in an earlier message.)  The fact that it was branched has 
meant that development has been able to continue in the maint branch.

I agree that the major layout redevelopment should occur on a branch. 
There has already been a lot of time spent on it, and it will take some 
considerable time yet, during which the layout will be pretty much 
broken.  So yes, I think that the effort should be made to switch the 
branches.  A lot of the useful improvements (the redesign of logging, 
the new configuration mechanisms, etc.) can equally well be applied to 
the existing code, and FOP gives the appearance of being constantly 
improved.

Meanwhile, the new layout engine can be developed fairly independently 
of the plumbing.  It doesn't matter what logger, or configuration 
mechanism or image handling the new layout engine uses in development. 
When it is complete, the merging of all the applicable changes to the 
maint branch would occur.  How would this be done from another project?

One of the problems that Keiron may have foreseen with this is that most 
development effort would focus on the maintenance branch for short-term 
results (and kudos) while the new layout engine languished for want of 
love and attention.  It's a real concern, made all the more real by the 
tenor of these suggestions.

Peter
-- 
Peter B. West  pbwest@powerup.com.au  http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message