You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/18 10:35:10 UTC
Use 1.2 as current
Hi *,
this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
Steps in doing this:
- branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
- merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
work, I'll tackle it)
my +1 for doing this right now.
regards,
Martin
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Ok - first for merging:
I'll try to do it, but will refrain from doing so if it gets too hard.
We'll see if it works or if it doesn't.
second for branches/tags/trunk renaming:
I think that Manfred's suggestion has merits. We can go with this.
regards,
Martin
On 4/18/07, Dennis Byrne <de...@dbyrne.net> wrote:
> +1 for making the 1.2 tag the "main show".
>
> I'm pretty confident that merging is no longer an option. The code bases
> have been separate for more than six months and they are very different.
> Plenty commits from several of us have touched 30 or 40 files at a time.
>
> Dennis Byrne
>
>
> On 4/18/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> >
> > Steps in doing this:
> >
> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> > work, I'll tackle it)
> >
> > my +1 for doing this right now.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Byrne
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Dennis Byrne <de...@dbyrne.net>.
+1 for making the 1.2 tag the "main show".
I'm pretty confident that merging is no longer an option. The code bases
have been separate for more than six months and they are very different.
Plenty commits from several of us have touched 30 or 40 files at a time.
Dennis Byrne
On 4/18/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi *,
>
> this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
>
> Steps in doing this:
>
> - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> work, I'll tackle it)
>
> my +1 for doing this right now.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Dennis Byrne
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Manfred addressed my concerns that I just posted on the other thread.
+1
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Manfred's idea sounds good to me. I especially appreciate that it
> will cause minimal disruption.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
>
> > Yes.
> > +1 for a switch
> >
> > But let's discuss the "how" first.
> >
> > Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
> > Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
> > rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
> > (eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
> > And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
> > me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
> > So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
> > 1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
> > they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
> > the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
> >
> > So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
> > have the following structure:
> >
> > /branches
> > /branches/1_1_6
> > /branches/1_2_1
> > /tags
> > /tags/1_1_2
> > /tags/1_1_3
> > /tags/1_1_4
> > /tags/1_1_5
> > /tags/1_2_0
> > /tags/1_2_1
> > /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> > /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
> >
> > The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> > anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> > project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> > first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> > in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> > to restructure again.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> +1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
> >> each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
> >> done with this step.
> >>
> >> What about this:
> >> move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
> >> move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
> >>
> >> That is quite a small step without any side effects to the
> >> existing code base.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Mathias
> >>
> >> 2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi *,
> >> >
> >> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> >> >
> >> > Steps in doing this:
> >> >
> >> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> >> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> >> > work, I'll tackle it)
> >> >
> >> > my +1 for doing this right now.
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> >
> >> > Martin
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > http://www.irian.at
> >> >
> >> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> >> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> >> > Courses in English and German
> >> >
> >> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>.
+1 to use 1.2 as trunk because I believe it'll speed up the development.
Also +1 to Manfred's suggestion.
Regards,
Cagatay
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Grant Smith <wo...@gmail.com>.
+1 for making 1.2 current.
+1 for Manfred's structure.
Once things have settled down (after Martin's attempted/successful merge),
I'm going to do another source code audit to ensure the licensing is all
compliant.
On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Manfred's idea sounds good to me. I especially appreciate that it
> will cause minimal disruption.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
>
> > Yes.
> > +1 for a switch
> >
> > But let's discuss the "how" first.
> >
> > Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
> > Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
> > rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
> > (eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
> > And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
> > me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
> > So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
> > 1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
> > they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
> > the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
> >
> > So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
> > have the following structure:
> >
> > /branches
> > /branches/1_1_6
> > /branches/1_2_1
> > /tags
> > /tags/1_1_2
> > /tags/1_1_3
> > /tags/1_1_4
> > /tags/1_1_5
> > /tags/1_2_0
> > /tags/1_2_1
> > /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> > /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
> >
> > The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> > anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> > project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> > first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> > in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> > to restructure again.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > --Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> +1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
> >> each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
> >> done with this step.
> >>
> >> What about this:
> >> move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
> >> move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
> >>
> >> That is quite a small step without any side effects to the
> >> existing code base.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Mathias
> >>
> >> 2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi *,
> >> >
> >> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> >> >
> >> > Steps in doing this:
> >> >
> >> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> >> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> >> > work, I'll tackle it)
> >> >
> >> > my +1 for doing this right now.
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> >
> >> > Martin
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > http://www.irian.at
> >> >
> >> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> >> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> >> > Courses in English and German
> >> >
> >> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > Development and Courses in English and
> > German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
--
Grant Smith
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
Manfred's idea sounds good to me. I especially appreciate that it
will cause minimal disruption.
Best wishes,
Paul
On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
> Yes.
> +1 for a switch
>
> But let's discuss the "how" first.
>
> Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
> Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
> rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
> (eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
> And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
> me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
> So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
> 1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
> they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
> the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
>
> So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
> have the following structure:
>
> /branches
> /branches/1_1_6
> /branches/1_2_1
> /tags
> /tags/1_1_2
> /tags/1_1_3
> /tags/1_1_4
> /tags/1_1_5
> /tags/1_2_0
> /tags/1_2_1
> /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
>
> The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> to restructure again.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 4/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> +1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
>> each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
>> done with this step.
>>
>> What about this:
>> move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
>> move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
>>
>> That is quite a small step without any side effects to the
>> existing code base.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mathias
>>
>> 2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi *,
>> >
>> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
>> >
>> > Steps in doing this:
>> >
>> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
>> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
>> > work, I'll tackle it)
>> >
>> > my +1 for doing this right now.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > http://www.irian.at
>> >
>> > Your JSF powerhouse -
>> > JSF Consulting, Development and
>> > Courses in English and German
>> >
>> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com>.
+1 for Manfreds suggestion.
2007/4/18, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>:
> Yes.
> +1 for a switch
>
> But let's discuss the "how" first.
>
> Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
> Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
> rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
> (eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
> And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
> me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
> So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
> 1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
> they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
> the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
>
> So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
> have the following structure:
>
> /branches
> /branches/1_1_6
> /branches/1_2_1
> /tags
> /tags/1_1_2
> /tags/1_1_3
> /tags/1_1_4
> /tags/1_1_5
> /tags/1_2_0
> /tags/1_2_1
> /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
> /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
>
> The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
> anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
> project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
> first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
> in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
> to restructure again.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --Manfred
>
>
>
> On 4/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > +1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
> > each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
> > done with this step.
> >
> > What about this:
> > move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
> > move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
> >
> > That is quite a small step without any side effects to the existing code base.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mathias
> >
> > 2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi *,
> > >
> > > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> > >
> > > Steps in doing this:
> > >
> > > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> > > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> > > work, I'll tackle it)
> > >
> > > my +1 for doing this right now.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > >
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > Courses in English and German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Mathias
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes.
+1 for a switch
But let's discuss the "how" first.
Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use.
Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but
rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version
(eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea.
And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to
me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x.
So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces
1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because
they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in
the way I just described. So, why not learn from them?
So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each
have the following structure:
/branches
/branches/1_1_6
/branches/1_2_1
/tags
/tags/1_1_2
/tags/1_1_3
/tags/1_1_4
/tags/1_1_5
/tags/1_2_0
/tags/1_2_1
/1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development
/1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development
The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking
anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current"
project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring
first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and
in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need
to restructure again.
WDYT?
--Manfred
On 4/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
> each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
> done with this step.
>
> What about this:
> move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
> move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
>
> That is quite a small step without any side effects to the existing code base.
>
> Cheers,
> Mathias
>
> 2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> >
> > Steps in doing this:
> >
> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> > work, I'll tackle it)
> >
> > my +1 for doing this right now.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Mathias Brökelmann <mb...@googlemail.com>.
+1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select
each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be
done with this step.
What about this:
move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and
move current 1.2 branch to trunk.
That is quite a small step without any side effects to the existing code base.
Cheers,
Mathias
2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>:
> Hi *,
>
> this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
>
> Steps in doing this:
>
> - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> work, I'll tackle it)
>
> my +1 for doing this right now.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
What is in head that needs to be merged with the 1.2 branch? Why not
move head to 1.1.5_1 and move 1.2 to head?
I'm rather worried that the spec compliance will go down drastically
if there are extensive merges.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:35 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
>
> Steps in doing this:
>
> - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> work, I'll tackle it)
>
> my +1 for doing this right now.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
:-)
+1
On 4/18/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > This will help to "finish" the 1.2 development. I am not sure about a
> > complete merge of the head and the 1.2 branch (it is a lot of work!).
> > Maybe I will put the 1.2 branch as trunk and apply fixes (maybe
>
> Read "I would put" instead of "I will" :-)
>
> > existing fixes in for 1.1) in the trunk as the issues arise?) However,
> > if you want to tackle the merge, I am up for it... :-)
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On 18/04/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi *,
> > >
> > > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> > >
> > > Steps in doing this:
> > >
> > > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> > > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> > > work, I'll tackle it)
> > >
> > > my +1 for doing this right now.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > >
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > Courses in English and German
> > >
> > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
On 18/04/07, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> This will help to "finish" the 1.2 development. I am not sure about a
> complete merge of the head and the 1.2 branch (it is a lot of work!).
> Maybe I will put the 1.2 branch as trunk and apply fixes (maybe
Read "I would put" instead of "I will" :-)
> existing fixes in for 1.1) in the trunk as the issues arise?) However,
> if you want to tackle the merge, I am up for it... :-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Bruno
>
> On 18/04/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
> >
> > Steps in doing this:
> >
> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> > work, I'll tackle it)
> >
> > my +1 for doing this right now.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
Re: Use 1.2 as current
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
+1
This will help to "finish" the 1.2 development. I am not sure about a
complete merge of the head and the 1.2 branch (it is a lot of work!).
Maybe I will put the 1.2 branch as trunk and apply fixes (maybe
existing fixes in for 1.1) in the trunk as the issues arise?) However,
if you want to tackle the merge, I am up for it... :-)
Cheers
Bruno
On 18/04/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now.
>
> Steps in doing this:
>
> - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1
> - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of
> work, I'll tackle it)
>
> my +1 for doing this right now.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>