+1 to option 2 - I like feature branches more than than an issue/patch
branch approach - large features often span many issues/patches.
Option 2 can also really be a superset of option 1.
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile)
On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Michael Busch <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi All,
When working on large patches, such as LUCENE-2324, I find it always
troublesome to use patch files only to track progress. Since
branching in svn works fine now (since 1.5) I'd like to create a
branch for 2324. The big advantage is that everyone can track
progress much more easily because we get a full history on that
branch. And people who commit patches to trunk can help merging,
because it's sometimes very difficult if you haven't followed that
other change closely.
I talked about this with Robert, Uwe and Simon in Berlin, and they
all like this proposal.
So two different approaches come to my mind:
1) branches/patches/LUCENE-2324/
2) branches/lucene-realtime/
1) We would have a dedicated place for branches that are used for
individual patches. Every committer who thinks it makes sense for a
certain patch to create a branch can do in the branches/patches
location.
2) Like with flexible indexing we create a branch for bigger
features. E.g. for realtime search there are several open issues in
JIRA and we could just use this single branch for all of them until
we're ready to merge a stable realtime version to trunk.
I like both 1) and 2) and don't have a strong preference. What do
others think?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
