Call for opinions : How to proceed with the CVS branches

[Thomas Fischer <Fi...@seitenbau.net>]

Hi,

as most of you know, we have at the moment a very unpleasant situation in
CVS: There are two branches, HEAD and TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH, both of which
contain improvements which are not contained in the other branch. Also, at
the moment, TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH is the active development branch, which often
causes confusion as patches are suppliead vs HEAD and not vs
TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH.

In my opinion, this situation should be dealt with in the near future, as
each commit to any of the branches makes it more difficult to resolve the
issue.

I have listed the differences between HEAD and TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH in two
recent mails to the dev list (see
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=torque-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=4591
 for the runtime, and my last mail to the dev list for the generator)

In short, the result are as follows:
The runtime and the generator should be considered separately:
In the runtime, the TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH is more advanced than HEAD. In
TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH, we have partial support of schemata and support for
outer joins, which we do not have in HEAD.

In the generator, HEAD is more advanced than the TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH. HEAD
contains a major refactoring of the object model, including the replacement
of the db.props files by java classes (this mean e.g. that the properties
of the database can better be queried at runtime). TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH, in
contrast, contains Henning's correctGetters improvement. However, it seems
to me that the correctGetters improvement can quite easily be mergead into
HEAD, whereas it is much more problematic to move the refactoring of the
object model to TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH

So I would propose the following: Take the runtime from TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH
and the generator from HEAD, and add the correctGetters to the generator in
HEAD, and put this all into the HEAD branch . (Of course, there are some
files that need special treatment, such as the postgreSQL templates in the
generator, so this should only be seen as the general direction.)

Are there any opinions about this ? I would really appreciate some
feedback, especially of people which have recently used the CVS HEAD in
their projects.

If the above proposal is accepted, I would volunteer to do most of the work
(though I will certainly need some help in some places, e.g. with
postgreSQL questions)

     Thomas


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org

Re: Call for opinions : How to proceed with the CVS branches

[Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au>]

Hi Thomas,

What you are proposing sounds good to me and all the better if you have 
the cycles available to do it.

It would certainly be good to get Henning's take on this also as I am 
unsure of his thoughts on the work Martin started in HEAD and of the 
impact of the migration to Subversion.

Scott

-- 
Scott Eade
Backstage Technologies Pty. Ltd.
http://www.backstagetech.com.au


Thomas Fischer wrote:

>Hi,
>
>as most of you know, we have at the moment a very unpleasant situation in
>CVS: There are two branches, HEAD and TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH, both of which
>contain improvements which are not contained in the other branch. Also, at
>the moment, TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH is the active development branch, which often
>causes confusion as patches are suppliead vs HEAD and not vs
>TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH.
>
>In my opinion, this situation should be dealt with in the near future, as
>each commit to any of the branches makes it more difficult to resolve the
>issue.
>
>I have listed the differences between HEAD and TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH in two
>recent mails to the dev list (see
>http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=torque-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=4591
> for the runtime, and my last mail to the dev list for the generator)
>
>In short, the result are as follows:
>The runtime and the generator should be considered separately:
>In the runtime, the TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH is more advanced than HEAD. In
>TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH, we have partial support of schemata and support for
>outer joins, which we do not have in HEAD.
>
>In the generator, HEAD is more advanced than the TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH. HEAD
>contains a major refactoring of the object model, including the replacement
>of the db.props files by java classes (this mean e.g. that the properties
>of the database can better be queried at runtime). TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH, in
>contrast, contains Henning's correctGetters improvement. However, it seems
>to me that the correctGetters improvement can quite easily be mergead into
>HEAD, whereas it is much more problematic to move the refactoring of the
>object model to TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH
>
>So I would propose the following: Take the runtime from TORQUE_3_1_BRANCH
>and the generator from HEAD, and add the correctGetters to the generator in
>HEAD, and put this all into the HEAD branch . (Of course, there are some
>files that need special treatment, such as the postgreSQL templates in the
>generator, so this should only be seen as the general direction.)
>
>Are there any opinions about this ? I would really appreciate some
>feedback, especially of people which have recently used the CVS HEAD in
>their projects.
>
>If the above proposal is accepted, I would volunteer to do most of the work
>(though I will certainly need some help in some places, e.g. with
>postgreSQL questions)
>
>     Thomas
>
>  
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org