RE: A few more suggestions

[Martin Cooper]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
I guess it even better to setup
first GUMP instead of *migrating*
from CVS to subversion.
I'm not sure what you mean by "instead of". Gump is a different beast 
entirely, and isn't related to whether you use CVS or SVN. It's more of a 
continuous integration tool, although its goal is to ensure that changes 
in one project don't inadvertently break other projects, rather than to 
work on a project by project basis.

Does anybody know much about GUMP?
I'm not an expert by any means. But I know enough to see that MyFaces is 
already building successfully in Gump. For example, see the log at:

http://brutus.apache.org/gump/public/buildLog.html
Btw. Martin, are you using GUMP inside
of Struts?
Gump isn't typically used by projects themselves. Rather, there is a Gump 
installation that builds just about everything at the ASF (and many 
projects from elsewhere as well) several times a day. If your project 
breaks, you will receive "nag" messages telling you that.

--
Martin Cooper

Thanks,
Matthias
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:35 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: A few more suggestions

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Bill Dudney wrote:
Ted,
Would it be possible for us to stay in CVS for the next few months
then  do
the conversion? I've not had to do it myself but I've read
that the cvs2svn
script is supposed to do a good job of moving all the
history over. Once the
IDE plugins catch up we could make the jump.
Thoughts?
I'm not Ted ;-) but I would say that shouldn't be a problem -
depending,
of course, on how many months a "few" turns out to be. ;-) But we can
cross that bridge when we come to it.
The cvs2svn tool does a great job of preserving everything,
history and
all. Once you're ready to make the move, the usual practice
is to load
everything into a test repo, let people play around with it
for a couple
of days, and then give infrasructure the nod. It should be quick and
painless for all involved.
--
Martin Cooper

-bd-
On Jan 17, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
Moving to Subversion was "strongly suggested" when we drafted the
incubator
proposal. However, the developers felt that the CVS IDE
tools were more
mature, and that they would prefer to wait before switching.
To receive the CVS logs, subscribe to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
-Ted.
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:21:00 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper wrote:

�On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:
�I have a few more suggestions for the MyFaces development team:
�#1) Consider moving from CVS to Subversion (SVN) when
its time to
�leave the incubator. �Apache has both types of repositories
�available. Struts just recently moved to SVN and people like it.
�I'm not totally familiar with advantages vs.
disadvantages but it
�seems to be a lot more flexible. �If this is something we'd
�consider than it would be best to do it at the same time as
�MyFaces leaves the incubator.
�I would strongly encourage this. Apart from the fact that all of
�the ASF repositories will eventually be required to move from CVS
�to SVN, SVN really does have some excellent advantages. The two
�biggest, in my experience, are atomic commits (meaning that all
�changes within one commit are handled as a single
transaction) and
�ease of refactoring. From an infrastructure perspective, using
�moving to SVN means that individual Unix accounts for every
�committer are no longer required.
�#2) Regardless of whether we use SVN or CVS, it would be nice to
�email the developer's list when users check in. �This is a
�standard practice with other Apache projects and helps
developers
�keep track of changes to the codebase.
�Yep. Not sure why this isn't happening already.
�--
�Martin Cooper

�sean