so are we good to go now import-wise? -igor
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Michael O'Cleirigh <michael.ocleir...@rivulet.ca> wrote: > I was able to add in a remote to the wicketstuff-core-1.4 branch from the > first import and then use git cherry-pick to pull in each of the 11 commits > that had occurred since the 1.4.14 release tag was applied. > > I've pushed my changes into the wicketstuff/core repository. This should > build the 1.4.15-SNAPSHOT version. > > Once we have everything finalized and announced I will cut the 1.4.15 > release and update the core-1.4.x branch to track 1.4.16-SNAPSHOT > > Since about 1.4.10 I have been creating branches for each stable > wicketstuff-core release for the 1.4.stable.x point releases. Those weren't > preserved as branches but I think the tags will be sufficient. > > I might try a new approach that follows how git is showing the historical > releases in that each release will get a tag and for the stable branch that > tracks the non snapshot wicket release it would move forward from release to > release. > > Actually the build just failed with push-timer complaining about java6 > ism's. > > Mike > > > >> i was able to restore it off the 1.4.14 release tag. hopefully there >> havent been commits in the interim. >> >> -igor >> >> 2010/12/29 Major Péter<majorpe...@sch.bme.hu>: >>> >>> I think the wicketstuff-core-1.4 branch got lost, the core project now >>> only >>> has the 1.5-SNAPSHOT stuff, at least that branch should be restored IMHO. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> 2010-12-29 22:50 keltezéssel, Igor Vaynberg írta: >>>> >>>> i think i got them split. core is already pushed, sandbox is incoming. >>>> >>>> we lost branches in the process, i dont think this is a big deal since >>>> they were mostly used as tags to mark releases. on the other hand i >>>> converted release branches to tags before i did the split, and those >>>> seemed to stick around - so maybe we havent lost anything at all. >>>> >>>> -igor >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Martijn Dashorst >>>> <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Great, I won't be of much help as I left my laptop at work due to a >>>>> mishap with my car (apparent broken battery) and needing to entertain >>>>> the AAA guy. >>>>> >>>>> Martijn >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 29, 2010, Igor Vaynberg<igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> i will play around with splitting and we can see what happens >>>>>> >>>>>> -igor >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:04 AM, James Carman >>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> On Dec 29, 2010 12:49 PM, "Igor Vaynberg"<igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i think core and sandbox are probably better names and more clearly >>>>>>>> communicate the intent. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -igor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Martijn Dashorst >>>>>>>> <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Currently our wicketstuff repo at github is one gigantic repo >>>>>>>>> containing everything. I'd like to propose to split the repository >>>>>>>>> into two: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - github.com/wicketstuff/wicketstuff (containing just the >>>>>>>>> core >>>>>>> >>>>>>> project) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - github.com/wicketstuff/archive (containing all the >>>>>>>>> side projects) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The idea is that wicketstuff core is already a huge project, and >>>>>>>>> I'd >>>>>>>>> like to make the footprint contain just that, without the legacy >>>>>>>>> projects that surround the core. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to do this before folks start cloning away, so before we >>>>>>>>> announce the availability. But if anyone wants to wait that's fine >>>>>>>>> with me as well... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone got ideas or a different opinion? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Martijn >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: >>>>>>>>> http://wicketinaction.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > >
