>Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first, >before spending too much time on looking for a solution.
+1 This exactly matches my morning metro thoughts. Nathan, thanks for catching this point. With best regards, Alexei Fedotov, Intel Java & XML Engineering >-----Original Message----- >From: Nathan Beyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:06 AM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor - CHECKPOINT > >What's the concern about just using the prescribed branching pattern >for SVN? There are some other nice tricks like "externals" for pulling >in common files into the working copies of other branches (ala the >'concurrent' code in 'standard' that's pulled into 'enhanced' on >checkout). I would propose we at least attempt to go down a path of >investigating a branching. > >Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first, >before spending too much time on looking for a solution. For example, >if logging is a real requirement, but everyone agrees it can be done >via instrumentation (AspectJ, java.lang.instrument, etc), then are >there any other requirements that affect the actual source files >internally? If not, then could all of the other requirements be >fulfilled by judicious SCM use? > >So, I would suggest we back up a little and just layout all of the >requirements first, so we can make sure everyone's in agreement about >the needs. > >-Nathan > >On 10/31/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So we all agree that it's not an ideal solution. >> >> Can anyone think of anything else? No one said this was going to be >easy... >> >> geir >>
