I tend to agree with Dave here on the principle. Unfortunately, svn is really lousy at working with branches, but using Git makes this kind of a development approach extremely beneficial for everyone.
(Hint: JSPWiki is available at GitHub as well: https://github.com/apache/jspwiki. While svn is the authoritative source [and is the source of this Git repo], a great way to contribute is to clone the git repo, make your own feature branch and then attach the patches to the JIRA [to make sure the legal ticks are placed in the corresponding legal boxes.] On a personal level, I've already switched to Git everywhere I can, including JSPWiki development. I just commit to the SVN repo, that's all. The ability to maintain personal branches and local commits is just the killer feature for me.) /Janne On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:46 , Dave Wolf wrote: > @Florian: There may be different "projects" (feature additions), but unless > something truely remarkable (tragic?) happens they would always be added > back into first the targeted release branch and then after release to > production into the trunk. > > In some ways, the trunk becomes somewhat useless and as it only serves as a > point for branching and merging back later. We also have a CM team who do > the merging of the release branch back into the trunk when the branch goes > into production. Then we create a new release branch for the next release > and development begins anew. The main thread of development flows through > the release and related "feature" branches. > > Really, the only advantage that I see with this model is the explicit > knowledge that if you're working on a specific version's functionality, > you'll be using either the release branch or a feature branch off of the > release branch; rather than the implicit use of the trunk for the current > development release. > > Cheers, > Dave Wolf > > "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life that > is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson Mandela > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Florian Holeczek <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> @Janne: I think these are two different topics that shouldn't be mixed up. >> Seems what's lacking are things like a road map, documentation and more or >> less clear development tasks for new contributors. That way it would be >> easier for people to join the project. So far, the development process has >> been working because the "big" contributors were able to do major parts on >> their own. That has changed, and that's the reason why the development >> process has been slowing down IMO. The code base is not that small anymore, >> so it's quite hard for a newbie to continue working on bigger points someone >> else has begun. >> >> @Dave: Thanks for clarifying that different way of repository management. >> However, I guess the way the code is used was different in your projects: >> I assume you had a code base and several projects using it. Each project >> has its own modifications and extensions, based on project specific >> requirements. In the end, you can have a look at them and judge what is >> worth merging with the trunk, i.e. what is assumed to be valuable for future >> projects. >> Is that correct? >> >> Regards >> Florian >> >> >> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> Von: "Janne Jalkanen" <[email protected]> >> An: [email protected] >> CC: "Harry Metske" <[email protected]> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 11. März 2011 23:56:49 >> Betreff: Re: Releasing 3.0.0-alpha... >> >> >> Well, based on the amount of commits I would say that the current >> development process doesn't work :-/. >> >> That's why I don't really care - if you're willing to do the work, branch >> all you want! :-D >> >> /Janne >> >> On Mar 11, 2011, at 15:32 , Dave Wolf wrote: >> >>> @Janne: I was simply answering Florian's question as to my reasoning for >> the >>> development trunk. Obviously, the current develop process works and so we >>> shouldn't change it and I do agree with you regarding the merging, >>> definitively a PITA. >>> >>> Dave Wolf >>> >>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life >> that >>> is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson Mandela >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Janne Jalkanen < >> [email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> If you really want, go ahead, - but be aware that all of our automated >>>> build systems assume trunk. Also, merging stuff with svn is a real PITA, >>>> which is why I'd like to avoid the creation of new branches. >>>> >>>> /Janne >>>> >>>> On 11 Mar 2011, at 07:03, Dave Wolf wrote: >>>> >>>>> @Florian: Having a branch for development work really puts a strong >> focus >>>> on >>>>> what will be included in the associated release and the trunk remains >> the >>>>> overall code repository. At the end of the release, tags are created as >>>>> appropriate and the branch is merged into the trunk. Either way will >>>> work. >>>>> In the organizations where I've worked over the past few years, we've >>>> only >>>>> performed our development work in release / functionality specific >>>> branches. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @Janne: Shall I create saved-src/WebContent/.. & >>>> saved-tests/WebContent/... >>>>> directories for the two JSPs (FCK.jsp & TestMigratorForm.jsp)? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Dave Wolf >>>>> >>>>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a life >>>> that >>>>> is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson Mandela >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Janne Jalkanen < >>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, the more stuff we can get rid off the better. But I'd still >> keep >>>> it >>>>>> in the trunk. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Janne >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9 Mar 2011, at 16:04, Dave Wolf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should move classes, JSPs, etc that are not part of the >>>>>> supported >>>>>>> part of the release under a "saved-src" directory. That way it will >> be >>>>>>> easier for new developers to know what is in / out and plus it might >>>>>> reduce >>>>>>> the scope when debugging. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another thought, should we create a 3.0 branch and then merge back to >>>> the >>>>>>> truck after 3.0 is working and out? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Dave Wolf >>>>>>> H: 303-377-9537 >>>>>>> M: 303-956-9106 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a >> life >>>>>> that >>>>>>> is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson Mandela >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Harry Metske < >> [email protected] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dave, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you are correct, I saw that same JSP compile error (at least the >> first >>>>>>>> one). >>>>>>>> I'm not sure but there have been discussions on the inclusion of a >>>>>> wysiwyg >>>>>>>> editor that were not resolved yet. >>>>>>>> So FCK is probably not considered part of core JSPWiki until someone >>>> is >>>>>>>> willing to give some support on it. >>>>>>>> JSPWiki can work without it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have not seen the error in TestMigratorForm.jsp (I think I have >>>>>> ignored >>>>>>>> it). >>>>>>>> I did run the unit tests: >>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~metskem/tests/junit-noframes.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2011/3/9 Dave Wolf <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell these are legitimate compilation errors. Is it >>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>> that the jsp compilation doesn't have FCK.jsp in its path? I can >>>>>>>> certainly >>>>>>>>> understand why you might wouldn't pre-compile the test JSPs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The first issue is is in templates/default/editors/FCK.jsp, line >> 51: >>>>>>>>> TemplateManager.addResourceRequest( context, "script", >>>>>>>>> "scripts/fckeditor/fckeditor.js" ); >>>>>>>>> The method addResourceRequest doesn't appear to be in >> TemplateManager >>>>>>>> (nor >>>>>>>>> its parent: ModuleManager). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The next issue is in tests/etc/TestMigratorForm.jsp, line 25: >>>>>>>>> It is referencing a non-existent page >>>>>>>> (templates/default/LoginContent.jsp) >>>>>>>>> or at least it is non-existing in the trunk. It existed in the 2.8 >>>>>> branch >>>>>>>>> tho. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The third issue was an eclipse configuration issue, which I've >> fixed >>>>>> for >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>> environment. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Dave Wolf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for a >>>> life >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson Mandela >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Janne Jalkanen < >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My trunk works, btw - could be that there's some hidden setup that >>>>>>>>> happens >>>>>>>>>> to be on my machine but not yours? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Janne >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 20:30 , Harry Metske wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dave, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> as far as I know there is nothing missing, can you be a bit more >>>>>>>>> specific >>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>> Running "ant war" on the trunk (v3.0.0-svn-224) gives me a proper >>>> war >>>>>>>>>> file, >>>>>>>>>>> that I can deploy on Tomcat and I can point my browser to the >>>> JSPWiki >>>>>>>>>> URL. >>>>>>>>>>> (after that it stops, because the trunk is simple not working). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Running the junit tests gives me 2 failures and 1 error (out of >>>> 1029 >>>>>>>>>> tests). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2011/3/8 Dave Wolf <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are there some files that need to be checked in? There were >>>> several >>>>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>>>> errors. it appears that LoginContext.jsp is missing or the >>>> reference >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> is out of date. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Wolf >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling for >> a >>>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson >> Mandela >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Florian Holeczek < >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dave, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct one is the trunk ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> Florian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Von: "Dave Wolf" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> CC: "Florian Holeczek" <[email protected]>, "Janne Jalkanen" >> < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. März 2011 05:32:16 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Releasing 3.0.0-alpha... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Florian, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! I'm glad to help out however I can. I thought maybe I'd >>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting the unit tests to work. So, I checked out the 2.8 >> branch >>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> looks >>>>>>>>>>>>> like I should have gone for either the stripes or jcr branch >>>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>> just noticed that the package listed in the test report >> attached >>>> to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA >>>>>>>>>>>>> is the new org.apache.wiki.* package -- obviously not a match >>>> with >>>>>>>>> 2.8. >>>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>> base. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if I'm looking at the right Subversion repository? It >>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA that there isn't much to do prior to releasing a v 3.0 >> alpha >>>>>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there another branch somewhere that I'm missing? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Wolf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling >> for >>>> a >>>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson >>>>>>>>> Mandela >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Florian Holeczek < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dave, and welcome back! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Happy to read that there are some people willing to contribute. >>>>>>>> Seems >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>> there's still lack of people who can coordinate the release, as >>>>>>>> Janne >>>>>>>>>>>>> describes it. Well, never done that before, but I would be >> ready >>>> to >>>>>>>>> try >>>>>>>>>>>> ;) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't be that hard, since Apache's documentation seems to be >>>> quite >>>>>>>>>> good. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not very deep into the codebase, but I can at least give a >>>> top >>>>>>>>>> level >>>>>>>>>>>>> view. The two major changes in 3.0 are >>>>>>>>>>>>> * front end uses the Stripes framework, mainly done by Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>> * back end uses the Java Content Repository interface >> (JSR-170), >>>>>>>>> mainly >>>>>>>>>>>>> done by Janne >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Guess the easiest way to start is to dig into the codebase and >>>> have >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> look >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the open JIRA issues. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>> Florian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Von: "Dave Wolf" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> An: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>> CC: "Janne Jalkanen" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 7. März 2011 02:28:57 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Releasing 3.0.0-alpha... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be willing to get involved again and contribute to the >>>> code >>>>>>>>>> base. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the late response, I've been away for a while ('er >>>> years) >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>> had the messages getting filtered. I should have a bit of time >> to >>>>>>>>>> devote >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> JSPWiki. I'm pretty far out of the loop tho. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What (Java) issues might I focus on first? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Wolf >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "There is no passion to be found playing small - in settling >> for >>>> a >>>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> is less than the one you are capable of living." --Nelson >> Mandela >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Janne Jalkanen >>>>>>>>>>>>> < [email protected] >wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 08:38 , Henri Yandell wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So ignoring some paperwork, it seems that the only thing >>>> blocking >>>>>>>>> TLP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a release, and the only thing blocking a release (in JIRA) >>>> is >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of failing unit tests. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.0 is quite useless atm though... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, since our community seems a bit subdued these days (I >>>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current committers have other responsibilities weighing >> heavily >>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shoulders), who would volunteer to run through the release >>>>>>>> process? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would be a good time for people to step up and say if >> they >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continued interest in JSPWiki and are willing to help. We need >>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can coordinate the release, and others who are willing to >>>>>>>> contribute >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebase. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Janne >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
