Motivations, diffusing, back channels.... Can we turn this back into a
technical discussion? Somewhere in the ballpark of a simple +/-1
maybe.
-David
On Nov 4, 2004, at 4:31 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Nov 4, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Nov 4, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
It is covered in the subversion book http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Can understand why you would want to branch for security, but I
think you should keep working on your deployment stuff in the main
trunk.
If it's easy to fold back in, why not do in a branch? There's
clearly a difference of opinion here, one in which both sides feel
pretty strongly. Out of respect and courtesy, why not do in a
branch if the downside costs of having to bring it back to trunk are
so low?
If there are differences they should be aired on this list. I see
this as a back channel to not have Aaron implement a feature everyone
liked except Jeremy.
They are being aired on the list. Doing the code in a branch (which
seems to have no real extra cost) is also as transparent as can be.
With no added work, with everything in public, how is this a "back
channel", and how would this prevent, discourage or otherwise
influence Aaron to not implement anything he wishes?
It's rather traditional in some other projects I've been in to
demonstrate contrary ideas in a way that guarantees good exposure to
the community, with little disruption.
For a stable project that is not under active development, I
understand, but everything in geronimo is changing quickly. Should I
have implemented disabled gbeans in another branch? Should Alan
implement CORBA in a branch? Since this is the first time for
someone to branch, I suspicious of the motivations.
You might then suggest what my motivations would be for trying to
diffuse this in a way that everything can be done in the open.
geir
-dain
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
