You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2006/06/05 03:45:08 UTC
Tracking progress of merging dead-1.2 branch into trunk
I started thinking about how we can be sure we get everything we want
out of the dead-1.2 branch, and committed a file that I hope will
help. Starting with
svn log -r358492:HEAD >all_changes.log
I arranged each commit on a single line starting with "Not Merged"
You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with e.g.
grep djencks all_changes.log
I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
I propose that as we merge, verify the changes have already been
merged, or decide they are obsolete we change the start of the line
to "Merged"
Comments?
thanks
david jencks
Re: Tracking progress of merging dead-1.2 branch into trunk
Posted by anita kulshreshtha <a_...@yahoo.com>.
+1. More inline..
--- Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1.
>
> The m2 work in dead-1.2 included modules, deployment-plugin and all
> the apps. They all passed tests too. We can consider the m2 work from
> dead-1.2 merged when we have got these building and testing
> successfully into new trunk.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with
> e.g.
> > >>
> > >> grep djencks all_changes.log
> > >>
> > >> I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
> > >>
> > >> I propose that as we merge, verify the changes have already been
> > >> merged, or decide they are obsolete we change the start of the
> line
> > >> to "Merged"
> > >>
> > >> Comments?
> > >
> > > No comments so far, but I guess it can only mean we're all so
> happy
> > > with your proposal we can't speak/write anything ;) It does help
> me
> > > and am going to use/review it. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Do you think it's worth to apply the m2 patches given the
> > > revolutionary approach taken in 1.1? I'd appreciate Anita's and
> > > Prasad's comment on it.
All the modules patches are already committed. Some modules are
not included in the new trunk, e.g. spring, session etc! The
deployment-plugin and applications patches are waiting to be applied.
We need to fix few tests again.
Thanks
Anita
> >
> > My understanding is that the patches I've been applying from
> > GERONIMO-2071 are the port of the m2 work done previously on
> > dead-1.2, so this effort is already well underway. After I went
> > through the work I did personally in dead-1.2 I was planning to go
> > through again and mark the dead-1.2 m2 work merged. Is this OK
> with
> > everyone?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> > >
> > >> david jencks
> > >
> > > Jacek
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jacek Laskowski
> > > http://www.laskowski.net.pl
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Tracking progress of merging dead-1.2 branch into trunk
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
+1.
The m2 work in dead-1.2 included modules, deployment-plugin and all
the apps. They all passed tests too. We can consider the m2 work from
dead-1.2 merged when we have got these building and testing
successfully into new trunk.
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with e.g.
> >>
> >> grep djencks all_changes.log
> >>
> >> I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
> >>
> >> I propose that as we merge, verify the changes have already been
> >> merged, or decide they are obsolete we change the start of the line
> >> to "Merged"
> >>
> >> Comments?
> >
> > No comments so far, but I guess it can only mean we're all so happy
> > with your proposal we can't speak/write anything ;) It does help me
> > and am going to use/review it. Thanks!
> >
> > Do you think it's worth to apply the m2 patches given the
> > revolutionary approach taken in 1.1? I'd appreciate Anita's and
> > Prasad's comment on it.
>
> My understanding is that the patches I've been applying from
> GERONIMO-2071 are the port of the m2 work done previously on
> dead-1.2, so this effort is already well underway. After I went
> through the work I did personally in dead-1.2 I was planning to go
> through again and mark the dead-1.2 m2 work merged. Is this OK with
> everyone?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
> >
> >> david jencks
> >
> > Jacek
> >
> > --
> > Jacek Laskowski
> > http://www.laskowski.net.pl
>
>
Re: Tracking progress of merging dead-1.2 branch into trunk
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:42 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with e.g.
>>
>> grep djencks all_changes.log
>>
>> I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
>>
>> I propose that as we merge, verify the changes have already been
>> merged, or decide they are obsolete we change the start of the line
>> to "Merged"
>>
>> Comments?
>
> No comments so far, but I guess it can only mean we're all so happy
> with your proposal we can't speak/write anything ;) It does help me
> and am going to use/review it. Thanks!
>
> Do you think it's worth to apply the m2 patches given the
> revolutionary approach taken in 1.1? I'd appreciate Anita's and
> Prasad's comment on it.
My understanding is that the patches I've been applying from
GERONIMO-2071 are the port of the m2 work done previously on
dead-1.2, so this effort is already well underway. After I went
through the work I did personally in dead-1.2 I was planning to go
through again and mark the dead-1.2 m2 work merged. Is this OK with
everyone?
thanks
david jencks
>
>> david jencks
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: Tracking progress of merging dead-1.2 branch into trunk
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 6/5/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can see what you (or someone else :-) did in dead-1.2 with e.g.
>
> grep djencks all_changes.log
>
> I think there are 329 changes (I did about 43).
>
> I propose that as we merge, verify the changes have already been
> merged, or decide they are obsolete we change the start of the line
> to "Merged"
>
> Comments?
No comments so far, but I guess it can only mean we're all so happy
with your proposal we can't speak/write anything ;) It does help me
and am going to use/review it. Thanks!
Do you think it's worth to apply the m2 patches given the
revolutionary approach taken in 1.1? I'd appreciate Anita's and
Prasad's comment on it.
> david jencks
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl