You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Gerhard Froehlich <g-...@gmx.de> on 2001/12/14 12:44:45 UTC
FW: patch politics
Hi,
I think that issue is interesting for all of
us. Maybe some of you have additional
comments.
Gerhard
---------------------------------
Never share a foxhole with anyone
braver than you are.
---------------------------------
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net]
>Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:06 AM
>To: 'Gerhard Froehlich'
>Subject: RE: patch politics
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Good question. Sometimes I also think why people submitting things only
>into HEAD, and not into branch. I think that:
>
>1. If this is a bug fix - _definitely_ should go to both branches,
>2. If something is totally new (like DBXML: protocol or Lucene search) -
>it for sure goes into HEAD,
>3. Something in between, but does not breaks backward compatibility -
>_may_ go into both (and may not),
>4. Everything else - I guess vote might be required here, so first it
>may go into HEAD, and then be VOTEd in order to sync this into branch.
>Another way is to commit changes and wait for reaction ;)
>
>Also, things like code cleanup or performance improvements should go to
>both branches.
>
>This is my suggestions - others could have other opinions.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:g-froehlich@gmx.de]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:36 PM
>> To: vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net
>> Subject: patch politics
>>
>> Hi Vadim,
>> how do you decide if a patch belong in the HEAD branch
>> or in both??
>>
>> TIA
>> Gerhard
>>
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Hey! It compiles! Ship it!
>> --------------------------
>
>:)))
>
>
>Vadim
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FW: patch politics
Posted by Gerhard Froehlich <g-...@gmx.de>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
>Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:45 PM
>To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
>Subject: Re: FW: patch politics
>
>
>Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>>
>> There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
>> experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
>> something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
>> contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.
>
>
>Then that experimental/unverified/new code needs to be in scratchpad!
>That's what it's there for.
>
Yepp, IMHO it would be easier to maintain the scratchpad as two branches.
(And you can play around a little bit in the scratchpad, without getting
in trouble with verfied code).
But maybe the scratchpad needs his own
lib directory
roles file
xconf file
Gerhard
"God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things.
Right now, I am so far behind I shall never die."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FW: patch politics
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:bloritsch@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:45 PM
> To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: Re: FW: patch politics
>
> Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> >
> > There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
> > experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
> > something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
> > contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.
>
>
> Then that experimental/unverified/new code needs to be in scratchpad!
> That's what it's there for.
If it allows you to do whatever you can do with separate branch - then I
do not have any objections!
(Note that you should have ability to have different set of libraries in
scratchpad and in the main branch - as Gerhard pointed out...)
Vadim
>
>
> --
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FW: patch politics
Posted by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>.
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
> There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
> experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
> something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
> contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.
Then that experimental/unverified/new code needs to be in scratchpad!
That's what it's there for.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FW: patch politics
Posted by Gerhard Froehlich <g-...@gmx.de>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net]
>Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 12:41 AM
>To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
>Subject: RE: FW: patch politics
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: giacomo [mailto:giacomo@apache.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 3:01 PM
>> To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: FW: patch politics
>>
<snip/>
>> Sorry, but there is a scratchpad area where such code can live. It has
>> to be moved there if that code is not stable enough.
>
>Cool. Then we need to cleanup HEAD a little bit and rollout 2.0.1
>release out of it.
Yep kool, but then I suggest to structure the scratchpad a little bit.
How about
lib/ (I already created)
src/org/apache/cocoon/scratchpad/...
(to avoid conflicts with existing Cocoon packages)
webapp/
What do you think
Gerhard
------------------------------------------------
If patience is a virtue, and ignorance is bliss,
you can have a pretty good life if you're stupid
and willing to wait.
------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FW: patch politics
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: giacomo [mailto:giacomo@apache.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 3:01 PM
> To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: FW: patch politics
>
<snip>
> > >
> > > Well, I'll clean up the HEAD branch slowly but I don't have the
time to
> > > do it in the 2.0 branch as well. I'd suggest to move the head to
> > > release quality and only patch the 2.0 branch for bugs. This way
we can
> > > get rid of the 2.0 branch sooner than later (which was always the
> > > proposed way to go IIRC).
> >
> > There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
> > experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
> > something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
> > contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.
>
> Sorry, but there is a scratchpad area where such code can live. It has
> to be moved there if that code is not stable enough.
Cool. Then we need to cleanup HEAD a little bit and rollout 2.0.1
release out of it.
Vadim
>
> Giacomo
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FW: patch politics
Posted by giacomo <gi...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: giacomo [mailto:giacomo@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 11:17 AM
> > To: cocoon-Dev
> > Subject: Re: FW: patch politics
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I think that issue is interesting for all of
> > > us. Maybe some of you have additional
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > Gerhard
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net]
> > > >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:06 AM
> > > >To: 'Gerhard Froehlich'
> > > >Subject: RE: patch politics
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >Good question. Sometimes I also think why people submitting things
> only
> > > >into HEAD, and not into branch. I think that:
> > > >
> > > >1. If this is a bug fix - _definitely_ should go to both branches,
> > > >2. If something is totally new (like DBXML: protocol or Lucene
> search) -
> > > >it for sure goes into HEAD,
> > > >3. Something in between, but does not breaks backward compatibility
> -
> > > >_may_ go into both (and may not),
> > > >4. Everything else - I guess vote might be required here, so first
> it
> > > >may go into HEAD, and then be VOTEd in order to sync this into
> branch.
> > > >Another way is to commit changes and wait for reaction ;)
> > > >
> > > >Also, things like code cleanup or performance improvements should
> go to
> > > >both branches.
> >
> > Well, I'll clean up the HEAD branch slowly but I don't have the time
> to
> > do it in the 2.0 branch as well. I'd suggest to move the head to
> > release quality and only patch the 2.0 branch for bugs. This way we
> can
> > get rid of the 2.0 branch sooner than later (which was always the
> > proposed way to go IIRC).
>
> There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
> experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
> something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
> contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.
Sorry, but there is a scratchpad area where such code can live. It has
to be moved there if that code is not stable enough.
Giacomo
>
> Vadim
>
> >
> > Giacomo
> >
> > > >
> > > >This is my suggestions - others could have other opinions.
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:g-froehlich@gmx.de]
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:36 PM
> > > >> To: vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net
> > > >> Subject: patch politics
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Vadim,
> > > >> how do you decide if a patch belong in the HEAD branch
> > > >> or in both??
> > > >>
> > > >> TIA
> > > >> Gerhard
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --------------------------
> > > >> Hey! It compiles! Ship it!
> > > >> --------------------------
> > > >
> > > >:)))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Vadim
> > > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FW: patch politics
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: giacomo [mailto:giacomo@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 11:17 AM
> To: cocoon-Dev
> Subject: Re: FW: patch politics
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I think that issue is interesting for all of
> > us. Maybe some of you have additional
> > comments.
> >
> > Gerhard
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net]
> > >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:06 AM
> > >To: 'Gerhard Froehlich'
> > >Subject: RE: patch politics
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >Good question. Sometimes I also think why people submitting things
only
> > >into HEAD, and not into branch. I think that:
> > >
> > >1. If this is a bug fix - _definitely_ should go to both branches,
> > >2. If something is totally new (like DBXML: protocol or Lucene
search) -
> > >it for sure goes into HEAD,
> > >3. Something in between, but does not breaks backward compatibility
-
> > >_may_ go into both (and may not),
> > >4. Everything else - I guess vote might be required here, so first
it
> > >may go into HEAD, and then be VOTEd in order to sync this into
branch.
> > >Another way is to commit changes and wait for reaction ;)
> > >
> > >Also, things like code cleanup or performance improvements should
go to
> > >both branches.
>
> Well, I'll clean up the HEAD branch slowly but I don't have the time
to
> do it in the 2.0 branch as well. I'd suggest to move the head to
> release quality and only patch the 2.0 branch for bugs. This way we
can
> get rid of the 2.0 branch sooner than later (which was always the
> proposed way to go IIRC).
There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.
Vadim
>
> Giacomo
>
> > >
> > >This is my suggestions - others could have other opinions.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:g-froehlich@gmx.de]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:36 PM
> > >> To: vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net
> > >> Subject: patch politics
> > >>
> > >> Hi Vadim,
> > >> how do you decide if a patch belong in the HEAD branch
> > >> or in both??
> > >>
> > >> TIA
> > >> Gerhard
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------
> > >> Hey! It compiles! Ship it!
> > >> --------------------------
> > >
> > >:)))
> > >
> > >
> > >Vadim
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FW: patch politics
Posted by giacomo <gi...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> Hi,
> I think that issue is interesting for all of
> us. Maybe some of you have additional
> comments.
>
> Gerhard
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never share a foxhole with anyone
> braver than you are.
> ---------------------------------
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net]
> >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:06 AM
> >To: 'Gerhard Froehlich'
> >Subject: RE: patch politics
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >Good question. Sometimes I also think why people submitting things only
> >into HEAD, and not into branch. I think that:
> >
> >1. If this is a bug fix - _definitely_ should go to both branches,
> >2. If something is totally new (like DBXML: protocol or Lucene search) -
> >it for sure goes into HEAD,
> >3. Something in between, but does not breaks backward compatibility -
> >_may_ go into both (and may not),
> >4. Everything else - I guess vote might be required here, so first it
> >may go into HEAD, and then be VOTEd in order to sync this into branch.
> >Another way is to commit changes and wait for reaction ;)
> >
> >Also, things like code cleanup or performance improvements should go to
> >both branches.
Well, I'll clean up the HEAD branch slowly but I don't have the time to
do it in the 2.0 branch as well. I'd suggest to move the head to
release quality and only patch the 2.0 branch for bugs. This way we can
get rid of the 2.0 branch sooner than later (which was always the
proposed way to go IIRC).
Giacomo
> >
> >This is my suggestions - others could have other opinions.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:g-froehlich@gmx.de]
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:36 PM
> >> To: vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net
> >> Subject: patch politics
> >>
> >> Hi Vadim,
> >> how do you decide if a patch belong in the HEAD branch
> >> or in both??
> >>
> >> TIA
> >> Gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >> --------------------------
> >> Hey! It compiles! Ship it!
> >> --------------------------
> >
> >:)))
> >
> >
> >Vadim
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org