You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@archiva.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2007/08/18 15:46:38 UTC
MRM-462 progress
I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I thought
it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at least quite
disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot down to trunk once
completed.
Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm confident
that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all the tests are
passing again (I've added some coverage that was missing in archiva-
configuration, the rest are much less consequential changes).
The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests there
to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take a little
longer.
I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
configuration have leaked out throughout the application - something
to review later on.
Thanks,
Brett
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
This has been sitting out there a while now with the major changes in
place, and I've finished up the webapp today and added tests. I'll
start merging it onto trunk!
- Brett
On 18/08/2007, at 11:46 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I
> thought it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at
> least quite disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot down
> to trunk once completed.
>
> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm
> confident that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all
> the tests are passing again (I've added some coverage that was
> missing in archiva-configuration, the rest are much less
> consequential changes).
>
> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests
> there to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take
> a little longer.
>
> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
> configuration have leaked out throughout the application -
> something to review later on.
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
--
Brett Porter - brett@apache.org
Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Joakim Erdfelt <jo...@erdfelt.com>.
Brett Porter wrote:
> hehe - to be clear, I was kind of joking. My stuff is on a branch
> because I don't like local changes and because it isn't yet 100%
> working. I don't want to interfere with the release.
>
> It's existence will also help Joakim to review it and understand where
> there are potential conflicts, and minimise the damage. Right, Joakim? :)
Yes, I will definitely be looking closer at this branch. It is next in
line for my attention after MRM-463 (metadata work).
>
> I don't intend to maintain it any longer than this week.
>
> On 21/08/2007, at 3:10 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
>> It's why I'm not in favor of the decision we made to use branches.
>> First times it could be a game. Following times it's quickly the war.
>> The one who want to be the first to back home (in a corporate env)
>> will commit its code with less checks and the last one will be
>> punished by having to merge others changes. In opensource we are less
>> in a hurry, thus I hope we'll not see the second case happen.
>>
>> Arnaud
>>
- Joakim
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
I know that you were joking. And it's not a problem actually. As you
said your branch have a short time to live and you did it because you
were not sure of the result (what is a good case to create a branch).
What I hope is that it will continue to be done in this state of mind.
cheers
arnaud
On 21/08/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> hehe - to be clear, I was kind of joking. My stuff is on a branch
> because I don't like local changes and because it isn't yet 100%
> working. I don't want to interfere with the release.
>
> It's existence will also help Joakim to review it and understand
> where there are potential conflicts, and minimise the damage. Right,
> Joakim? :)
>
> I don't intend to maintain it any longer than this week.
>
> On 21/08/2007, at 3:10 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
> > It's why I'm not in favor of the decision we made to use branches.
> > First times it could be a game. Following times it's quickly the war.
> > The one who want to be the first to back home (in a corporate env)
> > will commit its code with less checks and the last one will be
> > punished by having to merge others changes. In opensource we are less
> > in a hurry, thus I hope we'll not see the second case happen.
> >
> > Arnaud
> >
> > On 21/08/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> I'm not merging until I'm done, and I'll give a heads up.
> >>
> >> But please, be nice... :)
> >>
> >> Actually, maybe we should race. Loser has to resolve the
> >> conflicts! :)
> >>
> >> - Brett
> >>
> >> On 21/08/2007, at 1:04 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have a decent raft of new code coming in as part of MRM-463
> >>> (metadata stuff), can you hold off until that commit comes in?
> >>>
> >>> - Joakim
> >>>
> >>> Brett Porter wrote:
> >>>> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I
> >>>> thought it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at
> >>>> least quite disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot
> >>>> down to trunk once completed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm
> >>>> confident that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all
> >>>> the tests are passing again (I've added some coverage that was
> >>>> missing in archiva-configuration, the rest are much less
> >>>> consequential changes).
> >>>>
> >>>> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests
> >>>> there to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take
> >>>> a little longer.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
> >>>> configuration have leaked out throughout the application -
> >>>> something to review later on.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Brett
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > ..........................................................
> > Arnaud HERITIER
> > ..........................................................
> > OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com
> > www.octo.com | blog.octo.com
> > ..........................................................
> > ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org
> > www.apache.org | maven.apache.org
> > ...........................................................
>
--
..........................................................
Arnaud HERITIER
..........................................................
OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com
www.octo.com | blog.octo.com
..........................................................
ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org
www.apache.org | maven.apache.org
...........................................................
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
hehe - to be clear, I was kind of joking. My stuff is on a branch
because I don't like local changes and because it isn't yet 100%
working. I don't want to interfere with the release.
It's existence will also help Joakim to review it and understand
where there are potential conflicts, and minimise the damage. Right,
Joakim? :)
I don't intend to maintain it any longer than this week.
On 21/08/2007, at 3:10 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> It's why I'm not in favor of the decision we made to use branches.
> First times it could be a game. Following times it's quickly the war.
> The one who want to be the first to back home (in a corporate env)
> will commit its code with less checks and the last one will be
> punished by having to merge others changes. In opensource we are less
> in a hurry, thus I hope we'll not see the second case happen.
>
> Arnaud
>
> On 21/08/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I'm not merging until I'm done, and I'll give a heads up.
>>
>> But please, be nice... :)
>>
>> Actually, maybe we should race. Loser has to resolve the
>> conflicts! :)
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 21/08/2007, at 1:04 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>>
>>> I have a decent raft of new code coming in as part of MRM-463
>>> (metadata stuff), can you hold off until that commit comes in?
>>>
>>> - Joakim
>>>
>>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>>> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I
>>>> thought it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at
>>>> least quite disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot
>>>> down to trunk once completed.
>>>>
>>>> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm
>>>> confident that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all
>>>> the tests are passing again (I've added some coverage that was
>>>> missing in archiva-configuration, the rest are much less
>>>> consequential changes).
>>>>
>>>> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests
>>>> there to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take
>>>> a little longer.
>>>>
>>>> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
>>>> configuration have leaked out throughout the application -
>>>> something to review later on.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Brett
>>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ..........................................................
> Arnaud HERITIER
> ..........................................................
> OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com
> www.octo.com | blog.octo.com
> ..........................................................
> ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org
> www.apache.org | maven.apache.org
> ...........................................................
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Arnaud HERITIER <ah...@gmail.com>.
It's why I'm not in favor of the decision we made to use branches.
First times it could be a game. Following times it's quickly the war.
The one who want to be the first to back home (in a corporate env)
will commit its code with less checks and the last one will be
punished by having to merge others changes. In opensource we are less
in a hurry, thus I hope we'll not see the second case happen.
Arnaud
On 21/08/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm not merging until I'm done, and I'll give a heads up.
>
> But please, be nice... :)
>
> Actually, maybe we should race. Loser has to resolve the conflicts! :)
>
> - Brett
>
> On 21/08/2007, at 1:04 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>
> > I have a decent raft of new code coming in as part of MRM-463
> > (metadata stuff), can you hold off until that commit comes in?
> >
> > - Joakim
> >
> > Brett Porter wrote:
> >> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I
> >> thought it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at
> >> least quite disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot
> >> down to trunk once completed.
> >>
> >> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm
> >> confident that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all
> >> the tests are passing again (I've added some coverage that was
> >> missing in archiva-configuration, the rest are much less
> >> consequential changes).
> >>
> >> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests
> >> there to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take
> >> a little longer.
> >>
> >> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
> >> configuration have leaked out throughout the application -
> >> something to review later on.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Brett
> >>
>
--
..........................................................
Arnaud HERITIER
..........................................................
OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com
www.octo.com | blog.octo.com
..........................................................
ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org
www.apache.org | maven.apache.org
...........................................................
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
I'm not merging until I'm done, and I'll give a heads up.
But please, be nice... :)
Actually, maybe we should race. Loser has to resolve the conflicts! :)
- Brett
On 21/08/2007, at 1:04 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> I have a decent raft of new code coming in as part of MRM-463
> (metadata stuff), can you hold off until that commit comes in?
>
> - Joakim
>
> Brett Porter wrote:
>> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I
>> thought it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at
>> least quite disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot
>> down to trunk once completed.
>>
>> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm
>> confident that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all
>> the tests are passing again (I've added some coverage that was
>> missing in archiva-configuration, the rest are much less
>> consequential changes).
>>
>> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests
>> there to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take
>> a little longer.
>>
>> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
>> configuration have leaked out throughout the application -
>> something to review later on.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brett
>>
Re: MRM-462 progress
Posted by Joakim Erdfelt <jo...@erdfelt.com>.
I have a decent raft of new code coming in as part of MRM-463 (metadata
stuff), can you hold off until that commit comes in?
- Joakim
Brett Porter wrote:
> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I thought
> it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at least quite
> disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot down to trunk once
> completed.
>
> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm confident
> that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all the tests are
> passing again (I've added some coverage that was missing in
> archiva-configuration, the rest are much less consequential changes).
>
> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests there
> to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take a little
> longer.
>
> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the
> configuration have leaked out throughout the application - something
> to review later on.
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>