+1 for making 1.2 current. +1 for Manfred's structure.
Once things have settled down (after Martin's attempted/successful merge), I'm going to do another source code audit to ensure the licensing is all compliant. On 4/18/07, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manfred's idea sounds good to me. I especially appreciate that it will cause minimal disruption. Best wishes, Paul On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote: > Yes. > +1 for a switch > > But let's discuss the "how" first. > > Just had a look at the tomcat repo and I like the structure they use. > Main issue is that they do not name their trunk folder "trunk" but > rather give it a name corresponding to the actual major/minor version > (eg "tc5.5.x"). I like this idea. > And what is more: moving the current trunk to branches sounds weird to > me. The 1.1.x is no branch and never will be a real branch of 1.2.x. > So, why force it into the branches folder? MyFaces 1.1.x and MyFaces > 1.2.x have more the nature of two separate development trunks because > they implement different specs. The Tomcat guys address such issues in > the way I just described. So, why not learn from them? > > So, if we follow that path consistently our (sub)projects will each > have the following structure: > > /branches > /branches/1_1_6 > /branches/1_2_1 > /tags > /tags/1_1_2 > /tags/1_1_3 > /tags/1_1_4 > /tags/1_1_5 > /tags/1_2_0 > /tags/1_2_1 > /1_1_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.1 development > /1_2_x <--- the trunk for JSF 1.2 development > > The great advantage: We can do this step by step without breaking > anything. All we need to do is point the externals in the "current" > project to the right trunk folder. We even can do the restructuring > first and point the externals to the corresponding "1_1_x" trunks and > in a second step switch "current" to the "1_2_x" trunks without a need > to restructure again. > > WDYT? > > --Manfred > > > > On 4/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +1 but without a merge of the 1.1 trunk into 1.2. We have to select >> each individual issue. That is quite time consuming and shouldn't be >> done with this step. >> >> What about this: >> move current trunk to a 1.1 branch and >> move current 1.2 branch to trunk. >> >> That is quite a small step without any side effects to the >> existing code base. >> >> Cheers, >> Mathias >> >> 2007/4/18, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Hi *, >> > >> > this is a formal vote on using the 1.2 branch as current now. >> > >> > Steps in doing this: >> > >> > - branch the current head as 1.1.5_1 >> > - merge down the 1.2 branch to current head (that will be a lot of >> > work, I'll tackle it) >> > >> > my +1 for doing this right now. >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > Martin >> > >> > -- >> > >> > http://www.irian.at >> > >> > Your JSF powerhouse - >> > JSF Consulting, Development and >> > Courses in English and German >> > >> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >> > >> > > > -- > http://www.irian.at > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, > Development and Courses in English and > German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
-- Grant Smith
