On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 07:56:31AM +0100, Paul Hammant wrote: > Jeff, Leo, > > >Nice analysis, Leo. > > > > > Ditto. > > >How about we do Centipede and Maven experiments in separate CVS > >branches? Then people can go wild, and once there's a working system, > >propose it's adoption on the list. > > > -1. We have few enough people doing xdocs per se, let alone in two > branches.
Hmm? I don't mean branch the xdocs themselves, just the system that transforms them into HTML. Doing a 'CVS branch' doesn't necessarily mean branch *everything*. Only branch modified build.xml files, and possibly some added infrastructure like tools/antipede. This is how I did the depchecking changes. The process is slightly more involved than 'cvs tag -b <name>', which I can elaborate on. Advantages of a CVS branch: - casual users protected from half-implemented changes - if Centipede files need to be checked into CVS, everyone doesn't need to download them till the system is stable. I'd imagine they'll change quite frequently, given Centipede's current rate of evolution. - we don't 'commit' ourselves to a system that turns out to be unworkable. If it works; great, we'll move it to the head when it's done. If it doesn't, no loss; just abandon the branch. - we allow the possibility of alternative systems. If someone wants to try Maven, go ahead in another branch. We can defer the final decision till we see what really works. Both systems are still immature and we can't at this point make a definitive choice of which is better, which is what committing to the head implies. > Jeff, you are our defacto build file maintainer, don;t bite off more > than you or other can chew. After almost 2 months I'm sick of build systems ;) I shall be an "interested and participating observer" of anyone trying to implement Maven/Centipede. --Jeff ... > +1 (given concerns about vanilla ant and most importantly <title> > > - Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
