Re: Angular Branch

[Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>]

Matt,

The only two considerations from my point of view are:

1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest priority.
We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests functions
on trunk.

2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing we'd have
to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and existing UI.
Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if the
existing UI is going away.

Chris


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>wrote:

> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I struggled a bit
> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what I can see
> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways in the
> same war with very few changes.
>
> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?  IMO it is
> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it doesn't
> negatively impact the core functionality.
>

Re: Angular Branch

[Erin Noe-Payne <er...@gmail.com>]

Well I definitely wouldn't want to merge before an 0.23 release -
what's to be gained?

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the real question. Are we going to do any more releases prior to
>> Angular being ready? If not, let's just do it in trunk. I don't think there
>> are really any major features other than Angular that are even being worked
>> on.
>>
>
> I still think we need a 0.23 release.
>
>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Rohit Kalkur <ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are still other developers/users of this application that are
>> > dependent on the existing functionality (the JSP version) of the
>> > application correct?
>> >
>> > If we are going to shift the primary focus to getting Angular implemented
>> > then I think it would make sense. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense
>> to
>> > maintain the separate branch.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <
>> > erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
>> > > > not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
>> > > > point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are
>> > > > changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
>> > > > of development while having to worry about breaking the production
>> > > > version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a
>> branch.
>> > >  Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to
>> update
>> > > both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway.  There also might be
>> some
>> > > value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while
>> until
>> > > everyone is able to migrate away to angular.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
>> > > > development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
>> > > > off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready
>> to
>> > > release.
>> > >
>> > > My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of
>> the
>> > > core development effort, if not the whole focus.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > Matt,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The only two considerations from my point of view are:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
>> > > > > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest
>> > priority.
>> > > > > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests
>> > > functions
>> > > > > on trunk.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing
>> we'd
>> > > > have
>> > > > > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and
>> > existing
>> > > > UI.
>> > > > > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if
>> > the
>> > > > > existing UI is going away.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <
>> > > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
>> > > > >> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
>> > > > >> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I
>> > struggled
>> > > a
>> > > > bit
>> > > > >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what
>> I
>> > > can
>> > > > see
>> > > > >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> same war with very few changes.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?
>>  IMO
>> > > it
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > >> negatively impact the core functionality.
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Re: Angular Branch

[Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:

> Here's the real question. Are we going to do any more releases prior to
> Angular being ready? If not, let's just do it in trunk. I don't think there
> are really any major features other than Angular that are even being worked
> on.
>

I still think we need a 0.23 release.


>
> Chris
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Rohit Kalkur <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are still other developers/users of this application that are
> > dependent on the existing functionality (the JSP version) of the
> > application correct?
> >
> > If we are going to shift the primary focus to getting Angular implemented
> > then I think it would make sense. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense
> to
> > maintain the separate branch.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <
> > erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
> > > > not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
> > > > point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are
> > > > changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
> > > > of development while having to worry about breaking the production
> > > > version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a
> branch.
> > >  Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to
> update
> > > both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway.  There also might be
> some
> > > value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while
> until
> > > everyone is able to migrate away to angular.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
> > > > development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
> > > > off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready
> to
> > > release.
> > >
> > > My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of
> the
> > > core development effort, if not the whole focus.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Matt,
> > > > >
> > > > > The only two considerations from my point of view are:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
> > > > > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest
> > priority.
> > > > > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests
> > > functions
> > > > > on trunk.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing
> we'd
> > > > have
> > > > > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and
> > existing
> > > > UI.
> > > > > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if
> > the
> > > > > existing UI is going away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <
> > > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
> > > > >> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
> > > > >> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I
> > struggled
> > > a
> > > > bit
> > > > >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what
> I
> > > can
> > > > see
> > > > >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > >> same war with very few changes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?
>  IMO
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> negatively impact the core functionality.
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Angular Branch

[Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>]

Here's the real question. Are we going to do any more releases prior to
Angular being ready? If not, let's just do it in trunk. I don't think there
are really any major features other than Angular that are even being worked
on.

Chris


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Rohit Kalkur <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are still other developers/users of this application that are
> dependent on the existing functionality (the JSP version) of the
> application correct?
>
> If we are going to shift the primary focus to getting Angular implemented
> then I think it would make sense. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense to
> maintain the separate branch.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <
> erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
> > > not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
> > > point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are
> > > changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
> > > of development while having to worry about breaking the production
> > > version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.
> > >
> >
> > IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a branch.
> >  Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to update
> > both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway.  There also might be some
> > value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while until
> > everyone is able to migrate away to angular.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
> > > development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
> > > off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.
> > >
> >
> > We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready to
> > release.
> >
> > My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of the
> > core development effort, if not the whole focus.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Matt,
> > > >
> > > > The only two considerations from my point of view are:
> > > >
> > > > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
> > > > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest
> priority.
> > > > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests
> > functions
> > > > on trunk.
> > > >
> > > > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing we'd
> > > have
> > > > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and
> existing
> > > UI.
> > > > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if
> the
> > > > existing UI is going away.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <
> > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
> > > >> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
> > > >> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I
> struggled
> > a
> > > bit
> > > >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what I
> > can
> > > see
> > > >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways
> in
> > > the
> > > >> same war with very few changes.
> > > >>
> > > >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?  IMO
> > it
> > > is
> > > >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it
> > > doesn't
> > > >> negatively impact the core functionality.
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

Re: Angular Branch

[Rohit Kalkur <ro...@gmail.com>]

There are still other developers/users of this application that are
dependent on the existing functionality (the JSP version) of the
application correct?

If we are going to shift the primary focus to getting Angular implemented
then I think it would make sense. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense to
maintain the separate branch.


On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
> > not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
> > point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are
> > changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
> > of development while having to worry about breaking the production
> > version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.
> >
>
> IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a branch.
>  Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to update
> both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway.  There also might be some
> value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while until
> everyone is able to migrate away to angular.
>
>
> >
> > If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
> > development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
> > off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.
> >
>
> We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready to
> release.
>
> My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of the
> core development effort, if not the whole focus.
>
>
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > > Matt,
> > >
> > > The only two considerations from my point of view are:
> > >
> > > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
> > > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest priority.
> > > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests
> functions
> > > on trunk.
> > >
> > > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing we'd
> > have
> > > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and existing
> > UI.
> > > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if the
> > > existing UI is going away.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <
> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
> > >> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
> > >> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I struggled
> a
> > bit
> > >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what I
> can
> > see
> > >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways in
> > the
> > >> same war with very few changes.
> > >>
> > >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?  IMO
> it
> > is
> > >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it
> > doesn't
> > >> negatively impact the core functionality.
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Angular Branch

[Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <er...@gmail.com>wrote:

> If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
> not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
> point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are
> changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
> of development while having to worry about breaking the production
> version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.
>

IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a branch.
 Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to update
both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway.  There also might be some
value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while until
everyone is able to migrate away to angular.


>
> If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
> development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
> off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.
>

We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready to
release.

My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of the
core development effort, if not the whole focus.


>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Matt,
> >
> > The only two considerations from my point of view are:
> >
> > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
> > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest priority.
> > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests functions
> > on trunk.
> >
> > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing we'd
> have
> > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and existing
> UI.
> > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if the
> > existing UI is going away.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
> >> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
> >> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I struggled a
> bit
> >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what I can
> see
> >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways in
> the
> >> same war with very few changes.
> >>
> >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?  IMO it
> is
> >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it
> doesn't
> >> negatively impact the core functionality.
> >>
>

Re: Angular Branch

[Erin Noe-Payne <er...@gmail.com>]

If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are
changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
of development while having to worry about breaking the production
version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.

If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> The only two considerations from my point of view are:
>
> 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
> functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest priority.
> We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests functions
> on trunk.
>
> 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing we'd have
> to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and existing UI.
> Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if the
> existing UI is going away.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <m....@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the
>> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward in
>> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it, I struggled a bit
>> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From what I can see
>> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways in the
>> same war with very few changes.
>>
>> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk?  IMO it is
>> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it doesn't
>> negatively impact the core functionality.
>>