Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > Nathan Beyer wrote: >> What's the concern about just using the prescribed branching pattern >> for SVN? There are some other nice tricks like "externals" for pulling >> in common files into the working copies of other branches (ala the >> 'concurrent' code in 'standard' that's pulled into 'enhanced' on >> checkout). > > Even the authors of SVN warn people away from using externals.
Yeah, and a nightmare when trying to 'tag' code -- copying the link to HEAD is no help. >> I would propose we at least attempt to go down a path of >> investigating a branching. > > We should consider everything, but I'd personally rather keep as few > codelines as possible. Agreed. >> Regardless, I think we need to settle on our exact requirement first, >> before spending too much time on looking for a solution. For example, >> if logging is a real requirement, but everyone agrees it can be done >> via instrumentation (AspectJ, java.lang.instrument, etc), then are >> there any other requirements that affect the actual source files >> internally? If not, then could all of the other requirements be >> fulfilled by judicious SCM use? >> >> So, I would suggest we back up a little and just layout all of the >> requirements first, so we can make sure everyone's in agreement about >> the needs. Nathan is right -- this is hypothetical now, unless (for example) we start on Java 6 development now. > Exactly - we need use cases (and it's not clear that the logging > problems have been resolved w/ aspects yet...) You're joking, right? I tease the aspect people that logging is the only problem that has been solved(*) <g>. There are lots of references on how to do that, eg: http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/3109831 (*) it's not true though, there are a number of tasks that are well-suited to using aspects. However, I would use them judiciously. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
