Jeff >>-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. > I knew that :-)
>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 > We have precious few casual users. We can suffer a blitz approach IMHO. It worked well with excalibur - many people dipped in and fixed things. > - 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 run the risk of fork. Look at how much effort peter spent in Ant encouraging myrmidon as Ant2 that was in a different directory (granted not the same as a fork). He almost burnt himself out. > - 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. > That is a good point. However the major changes are with xdocs and with that we have notthing to lose. To be honest though, the first commit of Centipede capable build files should be 99% complete, not so? > - 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. > Oh blimey. A real bet on both sides option huh? ;-) >>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. > This is my big point. If I was going it. I'd work diigently on HEAD and commit it when no functionality was lost. I'd fire off an email making the announcement. If it goes ahead on a branch, I'd be pleased when it reaches the same level of functionality. Then I will ask "How does it look Jeff? If it is any good then merge +1 to HEAD..". Meaning I am sitatistically more likely to be a bystander when branches are concerned. And I am certainly an active person normally when it comes to build files. Regards, - Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
