David Crossley wrote: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > Ross Gardler escribi??: > > > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > > > Ross Gardler escribi??: > > > > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > >>>yeah agree, so what do you suggest? Like said I do not see the point in > > > >>>a 100% copy if I change <5%. > > > >> > > > >>That is not how branching works. When you create a branch it only > > > >>creates copies of the parts that are changed. Therefore, doing an "svn > > > >>switch" is really quick and easy. > > > >> > > > >>Since you have found your requred changes will affect trunk, I'd > > > >>suggest > > > >>using a proper branch. > > > > > > > > What speaks against "just create the final dispatcher > > > > plugins (like I did in the branch) in the trunk and leave v1 and v2 in > > > > our trunk till we have pelt contracts working with the dispatcher"? > > > > > > I may have misunderstood, but I thought you said that your changes would > > > couse problems in trunk and that is why you finally decided to use a > > > "branch". > > > > Yes and no. Yes if I use the v2 plugins directly, no if I start new > > plugins. > > I too was confused about the previous statement that > the next phase of Dispatcher work would break trunk. > I presumed that that meant the current skins, hence > the need to branch. I also wondered if it meant that > the work was happening in the existing structurer and > themer plugins, hence the need to branch. > > > > The only other thing that worries me is that there are already two > > > different versions of views in whiteboard, you are now working on a > > > thir. It is getting very confusing (your title is well deserved ;-). > > > > jeje ;-) > > :-) > > I too find the technique of copies of plugins confusing > and hard to manage and hard to keep documentation > up-to-date. > > > I totally understand you and we need to clear out the confusion. Still I > > think creating 2 new plugins would be quickest and easiest way. I will > > start clearing the v1 plugins then we have the same number of > > plugins ;-) > > > > wdyt? > > That is still too many. > > We should bear in mind that we have emphasised that > the Dispatcher work should not be relied upon. So we > are safe to make radical changes. We can assume that > whoever is using it, is also reading the dev list > with glee. They probably have a copy of a working svn > to manage their current website and local development, > and they have a local version of the matching docs. > Other brave souls are at the head of trunk, so no need > to worry about them. > > So i reckon that we do not need to support versions > of rapid development work. > > When the next minor hurdle of Dispatcher development > is ready in a branch, then we announce it on the > dev list and then just do it. Everyone then can decide > for themself whether to 'svn up' or not. > > Our main Changes for 0.8-dev should state the major > changes (and perhaps the svn revision number) and > then the rest of the detailed changes are in the > plugin's status.xml file.
What do people think? Is that the way that we should handle situations like this? -David
