Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 1.2.x become trunk

[Paul Spencer]

Manfred,

+1 for the following!

> /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

Are their any changes to the SCM tag in the POMs?

Paul Spencer

Manfred Geiler wrote:

BTW, thanks Matthias for the successful 1.2 release.
Good to know that someone keeps the business running while oneself is
lying in the sun beeing on vacation...  ;-)

Regarding the repo structure. We had some discussions before. One
proposal was the follwing structure. And AFAIR there where no
objections. I just copy and paste parts of this thread:
"
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 7/20/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I do not like the idea of "current (symlink to jsf1.2)".  To me JSF 1.1
and 1.2 are two products and should be treated as such.

Paul Spencer

Andrew Robinson wrote:
> Not to be too anal, but would:
>
> current (symlink to jsf1.2)
> jsf1.1
> jsf1.2
>
> Be a little more "tidy"?
>
> It should also consider the web site right? Right now, it only shows
> the current/trunk branch. Perhaps the site should be versioned as
> well. Example using tomahawk:
>
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/current (symlink to 1.2)
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.2
> myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/1.1
>
> On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Why not":  how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> > JSF 1.2?  Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>>

>> Yeah, but we're just making 1.2 the trunk, not forcing people to use 1.2.

>>
>> Again two active branches current11 and current12 sounds good to me,
>> where
>> current12 has the trunks
>>
>> Cagatay
>>
>> On 7/20/07, Matt Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > +1 (non-binding)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 7/20/07, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > "Why not":  how many users are ready to make the jump to
>> > > JSF 1.2?  Many of our users, Tomahawk, Trinidad, Tobago, are
>> > > on JSP 2.0 or earlier.
>> > >
>> > > It'd make my life way easier if the Trinidad trunk were 1.2,
>> > > definitely, I just doubt that would hold true for the users.
>> > >
>> > > Just for starters, what about the committers?  How many
>> > > of us can stick to 1.2?
>> > >
>> > > -- Adam
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 7/20/07, Cagatay Civici < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > About subprojects, I think the case is same for them, if we make
>> 1.2
>> the
>> > > > trunk for api, why not set 1.2 branches of subprojects as trunks
>> too?
>> Also
>> > > > after doing it, we may need to reconfigure current and current12
>> too.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 7/19/07, Paul Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > Assuming MyFaces 1.1.7 is released so the SVN configuration in
>> the
>> POM
>> > > > > of next version of MyFaces will be correct.  Otherwise people,
>> including
>> > > > > Continuum, who are using 1.1.7-SNAPSHOT from the repository
>> will be
>> in
>> > > > > for a very big surprise.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Qualified +1 otherwise -0 for the above reason
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Although I missed the discussion, my preference would be for a
>> MyFaces
>> > > > > 1.1 and 1.2 trunk/branch since both are active products.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Paul Spencer
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>> > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > >

>> > > > > > this is a vote for making the JSF 1.2 efforts by our group to

>> become
>> > > > > > the current trunk.
>> > > > > > Currently the JSF 1.2-work lives on a branch (
>> 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT is
>> the
>> > > > > > current version).
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Please cast your vote
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > [ ] +1 for moving the myfaces 1.2.x to trunk
>> > > > > > [ ] +0
>> > > > > > [ ] -1 and why..............
>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -M
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>