Good point about merging back down. Lets wait until we get both core and tomahawk out the door then.
Sean On 2/17/06, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm +1 for doing the move in the trunk and at least bumping to 1.2 or > maybe 2.0 as Sean suggested. > > I don't like the idea of this change right before a release on the > branch that is going to release at all. > > Since the release is imminent I'd also suggest (but that is all it > is) that we wait for the release to finalize before making the move > so that any stuff that needs to be merged could be done easily from > the branch down to the trunk. > > > TTFN, > > > Bill Dudney > MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org > Wadi - incubator.apache.org/wadi > > > > On Feb 17, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > > What if we changed the commons version on the trunk to 2.0.0 then to > > address the major change issue? > > > > I agree with Mike that users can always slowly refactor their stuff > > over time. We have a 1.1.2 release finished for commons so people can > > use that until they want to change. > > > > Tomahawk might be a little more tricky but right now we're talking > > about refactoring commons so I think I am still +1 > > > > Sean > > > > On 2/17/06, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > suisse.com> wrote: > >> Mike's arguments are valid. > >> > >> To make it easier for developers out there, it might make sense to > >> exclude > >> other changes from this minor. That would reduce the problem > >> sources for > >> those "outside" developers... > >> > >> Alexander > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:06 PM > >>> To: MyFaces Development > >>> Subject: Re: Refactor Commons to org.apache.myfaces.commons ? > >>> > >>> The benefits outweight the downsides. Currently, there's no > >>> guarantee > >>> that any particular Myfaces release will support your custom > >>> components if you have a dependency on our classes. > >>> > >>> Also, up to this point, if you're depending on Myfaces classes for > >>> your custom components, it's difficult to know if you're > >>> depending on > >>> API, IMPL, COMMONS, or TOMAHAWK pieces. This should make it far > >>> clearer, and make it easier for developers in the long run. > >>> > >>> A separate commons release is also new enough that it shouldn't > >>> be too > >>> big of an issue. > >>> > >>> The sooner we start doing things the "right" way, the sooner people > >>> can feel safe about using commons to build their components. > >>> > >>> On 2/17/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Well it's a package refactoring. So, each dependend (or using) > >>>> class > >>>> in impl and tomahawk must be aligned as well. I'm feeling > >>> much warmer > >>>> when doing this within my IDE, which has total knowledge of all > >>>> dependencies. ;-) > >>>> > >>>> BTW, is everyone really aware of what I'm proposing here? > >>>> We have an already released myfaces-commons-1.1.2 lib with > >>> package structure > >>>> org.apache.myfaces.* > >>>> The next myfaces-commons-1.1.3 will have package structure > >>>> org.apache.myfaces.commons.* > >>>> This is not what normally should happen between minor > >>> release changes, right? > >>>> At least we must make prominent notice about this in commons 1.1.3 > >>>> release notes. > >>>> Do you think there are already people out there, using > >>> myfaces-commons > >>>> as base for there own components? They might be angry, no? ;-) > >>>> > >>>> Everyone really sure? Really no objections? > >>>> :-) > >>>> > >>>> Manfred > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2/17/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> Just do the svn move manuall. Its not too hard. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/17/06, Arvid Hülsebus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> It looks like he had only problems with older versions > >>> of IDEA or the > >>>>>> Subversion client. We can't report any problems with IDEA 5.1. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Arvid > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Martin Marinschek wrote: > >>>>>>> +1 from me. definitely. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> regards, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2/17/06, Arvid Hülsebus > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Normally it does, but there are some limitations. I > >>> will ask Udo when he > >>>>>>>> is back -- in about 30 minutes. He gained some > >>> experience restructuring > >>>>>>>> our repository for the donation of the Tobago source. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> Arvid > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Manfred Geiler wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> pps. Use svn move to do this so we don't lose our history > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Does anyone know if IntelliJ does "svn move" behind > >>> the scenes when > >>>>>>>>> moving (refactoring) classes? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> Manfred > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.irian.at > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - > >>>>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and > >>>>>>> Courses in English and German > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
