Here's the real question. Are we going to do any more releases prior to Angular being ready? If not, let's just do it in trunk. I don't think there are really any major features other than Angular that are even being worked on.
Chris On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Rohit Kalkur <[email protected]> wrote: > There are still other developers/users of this application that are > dependent on the existing functionality (the JSP version) of the > application correct? > > If we are going to shift the primary focus to getting Angular implemented > then I think it would make sense. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense to > maintain the separate branch. > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm > > > not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some > > > point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there are > > > changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort > > > of development while having to worry about breaking the production > > > version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time. > > > > > > > IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a branch. > > Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to update > > both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway. There also might be some > > value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while until > > everyone is able to migrate away to angular. > > > > > > > > > > If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of > > > development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch > > > off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk. > > > > > > > We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready to > > release. > > > > My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of the > > core development effort, if not the whole focus. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Matt, > > > > > > > > The only two considerations from my point of view are: > > > > > > > > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been > > > > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest > priority. > > > > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests > > functions > > > > on trunk. > > > > > > > > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing we'd > > > have > > > > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and > existing > > > UI. > > > > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile if > the > > > > existing UI is going away. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin < > > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think that the > > > >> prototype work is awesome. I think it is a huge step forward in > > > >> implementation flexibility. As I was looking through it, I > struggled > > a > > > bit > > > >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch. From what I > > can > > > see > > > >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the new ways > in > > > the > > > >> same war with very few changes. > > > >> > > > >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to trunk? IMO > > it > > > is > > > >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long as it > > > doesn't > > > >> negatively impact the core functionality. > > > >> > > > > > >
