I would also prefer to see any changes to improve the maintainability and user friendliness of M2 build be held off until the server assembly is functional.
Thanks Anita --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:25 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > > Jacek Laskowski wrote: > >> On 7/3/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> NOTE... the m2 build in trunk is already broken... this patches > help > >>> FIX MANY OF THOSE PROBLEMS! > >> > >> NOTED, but... it's not broken. it has never worked so we can > pretend > >> to call it broken. It's a small, but important point we cannot > >> dismiss. > >> > >>> Since the official build is still m1 and this will not affect the > m1 > >>> build, I don't see why your point about breakage is applicable at > > >>> all. > >> ... > >>> When I first created the m1 build for Geronimo years ago there > were > >>> certainly a few moments of breakage due to build changes, but > since > >>> there was no commit by committee junk going on then it was easy > to > >>> just fix when things happened to get a bit askew. > >>> > >>> The branch idea was just to make it easier to actually make > >>> progress, > >>> as I am move on this stuff way way faster than the lot of you can > >>> react to emails and JIRAs which often (as this one did) need > several > >>> sets of emails to clarify. > >> > >> That's the point in RTC - discussing, discussing, over and over > >> again. > >> I'm not in favour of RTC, but some of its rules are fine. It > fosters > >> discussions we lacked. That's the main point of RTC. Isn't it > funny > >> that you've mentioned it as an argument against RTC? > >> > >> What's wrong with committing changes made in the branch back to > trunk > >> once they've been tested? My proposal is not to wait until the > >> migration is done, but rather apply it in small portions, > gradually. > >> It should work, shouldn't it? I'd greatly appreciate your comment > on > >> it as I guess I don't see the whole picture and keep thinking the > >> branch might help when others have already seen it would fall > short. > >> > > Can we avoid the concerns that have been aired regarding svn > > merging issues when directories are reorganised by leaving the > > reorganization of directories as a last phase of the m2 migration? > > > > I would have thought that we could move further along with the > > migration without reorganizing directories (AFAIK, maven should be > > > able to work with existing directory structures, although doing so > > > may incur more work). We would also need to coordinate the > > reorganization of directories with the owners of other branches > > from trunk, to minimize the impact on them. > > I would prefer to wait to reorganize the directories until after the > > work in the dead-1.2 branch is merged with trunk. I plan to go back > > to this activity now. Other committers may wish to note that merging > > the work in dead-1.2 should not need RTC as it is already part of a > main development line. > > thanks > david jencks > > > > > John > >>> --jason > >> > >> Jacek > >> > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
