+1 on the temp branch. - John
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 13:01 -0500, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> Thomas Watson wrote:
> > Advise from me on this topic seems a bit strange but I will give it anyway
> > since I have gone through this type of change to the Equinox Framework
> > many times ;-)
> >
> > In general we (Equinox) like to do all future development directly in the
> > HEAD because that is thought of as the latest and greatest. For most
> > situations this is perfectly acceptable. But there are times where we
> > need to make major enhancements and code restructure. Since the OSGi
> > Framework sits at the bottom of everything it can become very disruptive
> > to make ongoing major changes to the HEAD while developing the new
> > feature. For these situations we usually favor a temporary branch where
> > we can finalize the code without worrying about breaking the world that
> > uses the code from HEAD. This way we can save our code while we work out
> > the details and then do a final commit to HEAD once it is ready. We
> > usually do not like to work in a temporary branch for more than a couple
> > of weeks to reduce the amount of merging. We do nightly builds from HEAD
> > and usually like the builds to be somewhat usable. It is not acceptable
> > for us to go more than a few days with broken code in a N-Build. This
> > means our code in HEAD cannot remain half-baked for long periods of time
> > (> 3 days would be unacceptable). Not sure if any of this can be applied
> > to Felix, but thought I would share my point of view. To me it all
> > depends on how many developers use the code from your main code stream.
> >
>
> Well, by that standard, I would have to do a temporary branch, since I
> could not guarantee only a few days of breakage...
>
> As I said originally, I was leaning toward a temporary branch... I can
> probably minimize some of the branching by doing as much as I can in
> trunk. I could even do the work side by side using a different file, but
> at that point it seems like I might as well branch.
>
> Thanks for the input, Tom.
>
> > Tom (that Equinox guy)
> >
>
> Shouldn't that be, "that other Equinox guy" ? ;-)
>
> -> richard
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Richard S. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 12/18/2006 09:09 AM
> > Please respond to
> > felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> > To
> > felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: Branch or not?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Marcel Offermans wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with Felix and Karl to do the changes in HEAD now. Of course,
> >> you should always commit code that at least compiles, but HEAD is
> >> meant for development, not for taking daily snapshots of release
> >>
> > quality.
> >
> > Well, I would expect all changes to compile, since it is doubtful I will
> > commit something that wouldn't compile. I was more thinking about
> > breaking existing functionality. The overall time frame could be a
> > couple of weeks from when I start, depending on how much time I have to
> > focus on it.
> >
> > I can always hold off committing until I have it mostly working, but I
> > wanted to try to avoid the "big bang" approach.
> >
> >
> >> We should define the goals for the next release (assigning JIRA issues
> >> to the next milestone) and then start working on them.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed. We did that for the 0.8.0 release and we have already started
> > for the 1.0.0 release. For me, we have two main targets for 1.0.0:
> >
> > 1. Require-Bundle
> > 2. Security
> >
> > I will add require-bundle to the 1.0.0 release in JIRA...I will let Karl
> > look at the security-related JIRA issues and add the ones that he thinks
> > are appropriate.
> >
> > Other people should speak up if they want to voice an opinion about
> > specific issues that we should address and/or chip in.
> >
> > -> richard
> >
> >
> >
>
