I know that you were joking. And it's not a problem actually. As you said your branch have a short time to live and you did it because you were not sure of the result (what is a good case to create a branch). What I hope is that it will continue to be done in this state of mind.
cheers arnaud On 21/08/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hehe - to be clear, I was kind of joking. My stuff is on a branch > because I don't like local changes and because it isn't yet 100% > working. I don't want to interfere with the release. > > It's existence will also help Joakim to review it and understand > where there are potential conflicts, and minimise the damage. Right, > Joakim? :) > > I don't intend to maintain it any longer than this week. > > On 21/08/2007, at 3:10 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > > > It's why I'm not in favor of the decision we made to use branches. > > First times it could be a game. Following times it's quickly the war. > > The one who want to be the first to back home (in a corporate env) > > will commit its code with less checks and the last one will be > > punished by having to merge others changes. In opensource we are less > > in a hurry, thus I hope we'll not see the second case happen. > > > > Arnaud > > > > On 21/08/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not merging until I'm done, and I'll give a heads up. > >> > >> But please, be nice... :) > >> > >> Actually, maybe we should race. Loser has to resolve the > >> conflicts! :) > >> > >> - Brett > >> > >> On 21/08/2007, at 1:04 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote: > >> > >>> I have a decent raft of new code coming in as part of MRM-463 > >>> (metadata stuff), can you hold off until that commit comes in? > >>> > >>> - Joakim > >>> > >>> Brett Porter wrote: > >>>> I decided to use a branch for the configuration split since I > >>>> thought it could be (at least partially) contentious, and is at > >>>> least quite disruptive. I won't have a problem merging the lot > >>>> down to trunk once completed. > >>>> > >>>> Please review the changes if you are interested in it - I'm > >>>> confident that the changes outside the webapp are solid since all > >>>> the tests are passing again (I've added some coverage that was > >>>> missing in archiva-configuration, the rest are much less > >>>> consequential changes). > >>>> > >>>> The next step is to change the webapp, and I'l be adding tests > >>>> there to ensure that the functionality is working. This could take > >>>> a little longer. > >>>> > >>>> I'm worried at how much the implementation details of the > >>>> configuration have leaked out throughout the application - > >>>> something to review later on. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Brett > >>>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > .......................................................... > > Arnaud HERITIER > > .......................................................... > > OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com > > www.octo.com | blog.octo.com > > .......................................................... > > ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org > > www.apache.org | maven.apache.org > > ........................................................... > -- .......................................................... Arnaud HERITIER .......................................................... OCTO Technology - aheritier AT octo DOT com www.octo.com | blog.octo.com .......................................................... ASF - aheritier AT apache DOT org www.apache.org | maven.apache.org ...........................................................
