On Mar 18, 2013, at 23:04 , Russell Branca <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 18, 2013, at 22:32 , Russell Branca <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 18, 2013, at 21:06 , Russell Branca <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Last week I noticed the fauxton branch and master branch have drifted >>>> quite >>>>> apart, and are a couple hundred commits different in either direction. >> I >>>>> created a branch 'fauxton-rebase' [1] that is the fauxton rebased on >> top >>>> of >>>>> the laster master as of friday. >>>> >>>> Regular rebasing should make parallel branches manageable, or am I >> missing >>>> something? >>>> >>> >>> Regular rebasing will keep the branches synchronized, but it will rewrite >>> the history underneath peoples' feet. I moved my initial rebase over to >> the >>> fauxton-rebase branch to avoid messing with anyone currently working in >> the >>> fauxton branch. I don't mind having a parallel branch for Fauxton, and I >>> can take care of bringing in the latest changes, but if we go that route >> I >>> would prefer to do merges rather than rebases given we have a number of >>> people working on the branch now. I know how some people feel about doing >>> merges ;-) so I figured the best bet was to just throw everything in >> master >>> and dodge the problem entirely. If anyone else has a better suggestion, >> I'm >>> happy to hear it. >> >> Fair enough :) >> >> >>>>> If there are no objections I would like to bring the fauxton-rebase >>>> branch >>>>> into master to simplify development workflow and keeping both branches >>>>> updated. >>>> >>>> >>>> No objection per se, just: >>>> >>>> - Since master is poised to be the 1.4.x release branch and before long >>>> the >>>> 1.4.0 release, is Fauxton in good shape to be released? If not as the >>>> final >>>> replacement of Futon, at least as a preview alongside the regular >> Futon? >>>> >>> >>> Right now Fauxton is self contained and isolated from Futon, it lives at >>> /_utils/fauxton/index.html so both can be run in parallel. Its definitely >>> not in feature parity with Futon yet, but the things that are there work >>> reasonably well, and the more eyes we can get on it the better. >> >> So would you say shipping Fauxton as a “PREVIEW” or “EXPERIMENTAL” in 1.4.0 >> is sensible? I’d like to leave this decision with the Fauxton devs. >> > > Yeah I would like to bring it as Preview or Experimental release assuming > none of the Fauxton devs or anyone else has an objection. This would > obviously be a what you see is what you get type of release, with a lot of > functionality still not built, but the only blocker in terms of > functionality I see, is adding an auth module, as right now Fauxton assumes > you're in admin party. I created COUCHDB-1715 to cover this. The relevant > building blocks are in place to add auth, so this should be relatively > straightforward. > > >> If yes, let’s master it! >> >> > Let's do it!! Excellent! :D > > >>>> - Can we double check that all the legal stuff is taken care of? >>>> >>> >>> Good call, I still have COUCHDB-1710 open to update LICENSE with the >>> relevant dependency license info. I'll take care of that today or >> tomorrow. >> >> Cool, we should consider this blocking for the merge to master, just >> so we are entirely clean for the next release. >> > > Agreed 100%, I'll get that resolved before we make any changes with the > branches. > > >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >> >> > > -Russell
