You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> on 2005/10/31 18:30:32 UTC
[vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place them
in geronimo/archive/tags.
[ ] +1 archive the old tags
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 keep the tags where they are
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place
> them in geronimo/archive/tags.
>
>
> [ ] +1 archive the old tags
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [X] -1 keep the tags where they are
>
I'm of mixed feelings here, resolving to keeping them where they are.
First, I believe that we need to keep our history in place and
intact. I know that deleted SVN resources can be recovered by going
back to the rev number, but that's not the same.
On the other hand.... and this is a new motivation for considering
change... one of the "defects" of SVN compared to CVS is that tags
and branches are utterly artificial and are "peers" to the trunk
content, resulting in a massive first time checkout if you go far
enough up the tree. it also results in very long update tree walks.
(This problem first became obvious to me in Jakarta Commons, when I
used to do stuff there, because every project was in root :
jakarta-commons/
jexl
clogging
beanutils
...
and every project had it's own trunk/ and branch/ directories. So
$ cd jakarta-commons/
$ svn update
was *painful*, but needed, because you had interdependencies in the
tree. This was never a problem in CVS of course, because TAGS and
BRANCHES were "hidden underneath" the trunk, if you will..
So maybe we need "parallel trees". This doesn't solve Alan's issue
of perceived maintenance or something, but would get us out of the
increasingly painful situation where svn update from /geronimo/ will
get longer and longer. This is only going to get worse, especially
as subprojects are created.
So maybe :
geronimo/
trunk/
site/
devtools/
geronimo-bt/ (for "branches and tags"... please fix name...)
/trunk/
branches/
tags/
site/
branches/
tags/
devtools/
branches/
tags/
I understand the naming is suboptimal, but it illustrates the idea.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1 archive the old tags
-dain
On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place
> them in geronimo/archive/tags.
>
>
> [ ] +1 archive the old tags
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 keep the tags where they are
>
>
>
>
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 10/31/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place them
> in geronimo/archive/tags.
...
[X] -1 keep the tags where they are
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by John Sisson <js...@apache.org>.
> [ ] +1 archive the old tags
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [X] -1 keep the tags where they are
>
John
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
I'm coming in kind of late on this one (been fighting with continuum
all day)... but it seems like the conversation somehow got polarized
between remove vs. keep and the proposal is simply to move them (as
far as I can tell).
So, here is my thoughts ...
We have to move old binaries off the mirrors and over to
cvs.apache.org at some point (i think that's where they go anyway).
I'm cool with moving the corresponding tag to an archive place in svn
at the same time. There is a certain kind of symmetry in that which
is attractive.
So +1 to archiving the tag when we yank binaries off the mirrors. (I
understand that's kind of a modified version of the proposal, so if
you like the addition, throw a +1 on it for clarity)
I'm not a fan of deleting tags from the repo entirely as svn has this
cool "cheap copy" concept and I don't see any reason not to take
advantage.
-David
On Oct 31, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> It's messy and there is no good reason to keep them.
>>
>
> I won't argue with messy, but I *will* dispute 'no good
> reason to keep them.' In fact, I already have. :-)
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBQ2a6dZrNPMCpn3XdAQITvAP/b40SsfuretAfikORDk2Uct3jaV59b9DB
> 5B+JthfqK20BC4PO48oLT+6uf727p9i3WHuh10+wjN/Aer6mijQyISZjAbBR137w
> AZTRlVEgEeihomy8ca9aTpFhd8MrahjUKvgDRSCSoX5pJUtT6II/PVMnst3yKPs9
> UNI9KHyqZ4U=
> =WzgK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> It's messy and there is no good reason to keep them.
I won't argue with messy, but I *will* dispute 'no good
reason to keep them.' In fact, I already have. :-)
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2a6dZrNPMCpn3XdAQITvAP/b40SsfuretAfikORDk2Uct3jaV59b9DB
5B+JthfqK20BC4PO48oLT+6uf727p9i3WHuh10+wjN/Aer6mijQyISZjAbBR137w
AZTRlVEgEeihomy8ca9aTpFhd8MrahjUKvgDRSCSoX5pJUtT6II/PVMnst3yKPs9
UNI9KHyqZ4U=
=WzgK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 1:20 PM:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>
>>I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
>>existence of a tag implies some special level of support.
>>
>>
>
>Or 'this is the exact state of things at this exact point.'
>What's wrong with leaving the tags as they are?
>
>
It's messy and there is no good reason to keep them.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
A tag is there for future reference. There is no good reason to to
refer back to them in the future as they are viritually random snapshots
of whatever happened to be lying around at the time.
Regards,
Alan
Jeff Genender wrote, On 10/31/2005 1:24 PM:
> I have to agree with the Rodent. Is there a reason we need to move
> them? Isn't that what the tag areas are for?
>
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
>>> existence of a tag implies some special level of support.
>>
>>
>> Or 'this is the exact state of things at this exact point.'
>> What's wrong with leaving the tags as they are?
>> - --
>> #ken P-)}
>>
>> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
>> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>>
>> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iQCVAwUBQ2aKsprNPMCpn3XdAQLRKQQAxdsiphGHjxOPc5hOQwXghGlK5cyHiC/6
>> tAgKfKGdllXvJhgN9SCST54CqSerZRGuK+PQrQx4vxBei4wmD9DYq2Wy1C9AfCNV
>> 7QYVXuwudzfDP07LU2dECJcsvkgB4tRdbovw4XPXVNfa0ju+kRytouIeNZs1vXDs
>> hz8TCSlcRD8=
>> =JJlD
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@savoirtech.com>.
I have to agree with the Rodent. Is there a reason we need to move
them? Isn't that what the tag areas are for?
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
>> existence of a tag implies some special level of support.
>
> Or 'this is the exact state of things at this exact point.'
> What's wrong with leaving the tags as they are?
> - --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQCVAwUBQ2aKsprNPMCpn3XdAQLRKQQAxdsiphGHjxOPc5hOQwXghGlK5cyHiC/6
> tAgKfKGdllXvJhgN9SCST54CqSerZRGuK+PQrQx4vxBei4wmD9DYq2Wy1C9AfCNV
> 7QYVXuwudzfDP07LU2dECJcsvkgB4tRdbovw4XPXVNfa0ju+kRytouIeNZs1vXDs
> hz8TCSlcRD8=
> =JJlD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
> existence of a tag implies some special level of support.
Or 'this is the exact state of things at this exact point.'
What's wrong with leaving the tags as they are?
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2aKsprNPMCpn3XdAQLRKQQAxdsiphGHjxOPc5hOQwXghGlK5cyHiC/6
tAgKfKGdllXvJhgN9SCST54CqSerZRGuK+PQrQx4vxBei4wmD9DYq2Wy1C9AfCNV
7QYVXuwudzfDP07LU2dECJcsvkgB4tRdbovw4XPXVNfa0ju+kRytouIeNZs1vXDs
hz8TCSlcRD8=
=JJlD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> If they have no level of support then why keep them around?
Support again.. Has there been someone requesting
support for M1-M4 and pointing to the tags? We're not
on the user/consumer side of this deal, so unless
someone has asked, why do we think we know what they're
*going* to ask?
> They are litterally snapshots of what ever happened to be in the oven
> at the time.
Exactly. That's what tags are for. They're reference points.
When 1.0 has come and gone, and is no longer supported,
are you going to want to remove *that* tag too?
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2a6RZrNPMCpn3XdAQKl8AQA2LddpFy5Aj9I9lcA5XP6uZzNh9nuK3rp
8MQetIJWj+XmByt9xbQO026rZJ/dh4+0aY75hEGTyylqT/tAFj2iH2uO1AI3FNA2
9aORKXkigPZ32eSlKOY+D2umZfqiXjCmFUwUT4QRFUKo79+pzOK6EgU/OyFTxPMt
9xt8wr41cBQ=
=t3co
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Kevan Miller wrote, On 10/31/2005 12:21 PM:
> I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that
> existence of a tag implies some special level of support. Without some
> strong motivation, I see no reason to start altering the source code
> history...
If they have no level of support then why keep them around? They are
litterally snapshots of what ever happened to be in the oven at the time.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On 10/31/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
> I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place them
> in geronimo/archive/tags.
>
>
> [ ] +1 archive the old tags
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [X] -1 keep the tags where they are
>
>
>
>
>
I'm a non-voting member, but that's my 2 cents. I don't think that existence
of a tag implies some special level of support. Without some strong
motivation, I see no reason to start altering the source code history...
--kevan
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place
> them in geronimo/archive/tags.
>
>
> [ ] +1 archive the old tags
> [X ] 0 Don't care
Regards,
Hiram
> [ ] -1 keep the tags where they are
>
>
>
>
Re: [vote] archival of old, unsupported, tags
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I propose that we remove the old, unsupported, tags M1-M4 and place
> them in geronimo/archive/tags.
>
>
> [ ] +1 archive the old tags
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ X] -1 keep the tags where they are
I still can't imagine how this could possibly be a step forward. It
seems to me like introducing useless complexity for no reason I can
discern.
david jencks
>
>
>
>