On May 4, 2010, at 6:29 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > Is the hope for this proposal to avoid having to completely separate the > framework from the applications?
No, this is not my goal: in fact I think that the first step (before any change in our strategy) would be to resolve the dependency of the framework on the applications completely. > My first thought reading this was that it would probably be necessary to > separate the two so dependencies only go one way (ie applications depend on > the framework, framework does not depend on the applications) in order to > realistically do this. yes. > > Also, if we are considering this sort of approach, why not just go one step > further that will make things easier and move the framework to a separate > part of SVN with it's own trunk and branches folders, and then only include a > binary distribution of that separate framework on the applications side of > things? That would be even better: my only concern is that the ASF may (but maybe not) ask us to implement a more formal separation, with the definition of sub projects with independent PMC and releases, and this would be too heavy for the size of the community at the moment. Jacopo > > -David > > > On May 4, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >> What if we start evaluating a different way we organize our svn, daily work >> and release strategy? >> We may try to move in the direction of having a more stable framework and >> more dynamic applications. >> >> A very simple strategy would be the following one: >> >> all the changes to the framework (that are not bug fixes) are done in a >> separate branch (branches/framework-latest or similar); in this way >> trunk/framework will only get bug fixes. >> Every 6-12 months (or whenever we want - we can discuss about this) we merge >> the branches/framework-latest into trunk/framework and fix the >> trunk/applications (of course we could do this in a separate temporary >> branch). >> >> What do you think? >> >> Jacopo >> >
