Re: Confused about the branches
IMHO, we can remove. 2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur [EMAIL PROTECTED]: There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go) # continuum-acegi # continuum-site_1.1 # gbuild # id-refactor # key-based-refactor # osworkflow-integration # release-integration Cheers, Rahul Brett Porter wrote: Hi, I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and none merged to the other. Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use that for bugfixes only? WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
The branches have been removed except for 'continuum-site_1.1' which had some updates a few months ago. If this is not required please feel free to remove. Rahul Olivier Lamy wrote: IMHO, we can remove. 2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur[EMAIL PROTECTED]: There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go) # continuum-acegi # continuum-site_1.1 # gbuild # id-refactor # key-based-refactor # osworkflow-integration # release-integration Cheers, Rahul Brett Porter wrote: Hi, I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and none merged to the other. Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use that for bugfixes only? WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: 2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Agree on this. Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which prevent using xml-rpc :-(. Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues all together and release it. +1 ok, I'll get my stuff in there I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400. (The rest is documentation) I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196, r620613, r620612, r620611 I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set it as v1.2, and close the branch for now? +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel branch/trunk a la mvn 2.1 :-) ) I'll merge the changes to trunk - but will wait to hear other's opinions on this too before changing the branch It looks we don't have any objections/opinions. All changes from branch has been merged. I will rename the version in the trunk to 1.2 (tomorow). If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom as parent. Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like we do for Archiva? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ? A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from the maven parent pom) With an ASF parent instead of the Maven one, yep. Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms : org.apache.maven.continuum - org.apache.continuum ( java package too ? looks a big bang) I don't see any downside to doing this :) - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go) # continuum-acegi # continuum-site_1.1 # gbuild # id-refactor # key-based-refactor # osworkflow-integration # release-integration Cheers, Rahul Brett Porter wrote: Hi, I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and none merged to the other. Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use that for bugfixes only? WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Agree on this. Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which prevent using xml-rpc :-(. Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues all together and release it. +1 I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400. (The rest is documentation) I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196, r620613, r620612, r620611 I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set it as v1.2, and close the branch for now? +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel branch/trunk a la mvn 2.1 :-) ) If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom as parent. Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like we do for Archiva? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ? A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from the maven parent pom) Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms : org.apache.maven.continuum - org.apache.continuum ( java package too ? looks a big bang) Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: 2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Agree on this. Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which prevent using xml-rpc :-(. Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues all together and release it. +1 ok, I'll get my stuff in there I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400. (The rest is documentation) I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196, r620613, r620612, r620611 I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set it as v1.2, and close the branch for now? +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel branch/trunk a la mvn 2.1 :-) ) I'll merge the changes to trunk - but will wait to hear other's opinions on this too before changing the branch If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom as parent. Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like we do for Archiva? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ? A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from the maven parent pom) With an ASF parent instead of the Maven one, yep. Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms : org.apache.maven.continuum - org.apache.continuum ( java package too ? looks a big bang) I don't see any downside to doing this :) - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: why 1.1.x? in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the branch was for... maintenance of 1.1. or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development? I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the 2.0release and not only maintenance. With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :) I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a release out: - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds - better error handling - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use jetty 6 - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to speed up working copy updates Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone. I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
Agree on this. Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which prevent using xml-rpc :-(. If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom as parent. -- Olivier 2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: why 1.1.x? in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the branch was for... maintenance of 1.1. or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development? I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the 2.0release and not only maintenance. With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :) I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a release out: - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds - better error handling - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use jetty 6 - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to speed up working copy updates Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone. I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Agree on this. Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which prevent using xml-rpc :-(. Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues all together and release it. I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400. (The rest is documentation) I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196, r620613, r620612, r620611 I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set it as v1.2, and close the branch for now? If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom as parent. Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like we do for Archiva? Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
Brett Porter wrote: On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: why 1.1.x? in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the branch was for... maintenance of 1.1. or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development? I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the 2.0release and not only maintenance. With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :) We haven't pegged any version numbers to the tasks extracted from the roadmap discussion. I think we should consider what architecture rework we intend to do (and impact), and if it merits keeping 2 streams (or not). I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a release out: - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds - better error handling - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use jetty 6 - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to speed up working copy updates I agree on getting something out frequently. Having said that if there is a consensus on 2 streams then I think we need to keep the momentum up on both to get releases/milestones out there. Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone. I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ Cheers, Rahul
Re: Confused about the branches
why 1.1.x? On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and none merged to the other. Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use that for bugfixes only? WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: why 1.1.x? in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the branch was for... maintenance of 1.1. or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development? - Brett On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and none merged to the other. Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use that for bugfixes only? WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: why 1.1.x? in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the branch was for... maintenance of 1.1. or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development? I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the 2.0release and not only maintenance. - Brett On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and none merged to the other. Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use that for bugfixes only? WDYT? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
