On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 05:12 Europe/Rome, Geoff Howard wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
All right, what the hell, you are right, let's move out of the
impasse.
I thought we'd come to some agreement that no option was without
problems but that splitting to a separate cocoon-2.2 module was
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
All right, what the hell, you are right, let's move out of the impasse.
I thought we'd come to some agreement that no option was without
problems but that splitting to a separate cocoon-2.2 module was probably
the least bad option.
let's do a quick poll: who would be
On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 20:27 Europe/Rome, Jay Freeman ((saurik))
wrote:
Stefano:
I totally agree on the evolution thing. To start, the process of
moving to
Subversion would be a repository import, not starting from scratch.
As for tools:
http://subclipse.tigris.org/
(Subversion plugin
On Saturday 13 September 2003 18:40, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
let's do a quick poll: who would be absolutely against using Subversion
for the Cocoon 2.2 tree (granted that we can safely import the existing
CVS tree into it)?
state your reasons and try to be as less inertial and defensive on
: Berin Loritsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [RT] Starting 2.2
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Timothy Larson wrote:
I also wondered about Subversion when the repositories started
multiplying :)
Is this a possibility
On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 20:00 Europe/Rome, Jay Freeman ((saurik))
wrote:
So my eye finally caught on the Starting 2.2 thread today, it seemed
interesting, and I went to read through this... and I must say the main
reaction I ended up having to it is HUH?!?. :)
Is the reason you need a new
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Carsten, forget beauty of versioning and let's start working on
cocoon-2.1 HEAD, this will:
1) reduce effort and duplication
2) keep people sane since every commit will have to keep the tree in
shape (it's entirely possible to implement real blocks with what
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
joke
Ah, btw. I will replace ECM with fortress over the weekend. Any problems
with that?
/joke
Don't tease me... Want I should do it?
--
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-
Berin Loritsch wrote:
joke
Ah, btw. I will replace ECM with fortress over the weekend. Any problems
with that?
/joke
Don't tease me... Want I should do it?
Hey, great!
I'm definitly +5 for this! So if you want to do it, you could start a vote
and see what will happen next...
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
joke
Ah, btw. I will replace ECM with fortress over the weekend. Any problems
with that?
Yep. Aren't we supposed to use Merlin instead? I'm checking in the code
as we speak...
/joke
Vadim
Hello.
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 13/8/03 16:37, Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's do simple steps perhaps:
Do you think that we should start a new
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Le Jeudi, 28 aoû 2003, à 09:18 Europe/Zurich, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
...Great! Combined with the recent RTs, does still someone feel that
starting 2.2 is the right thing? Or are there still objections?...
I'm +1 on starting 2.2 given what's going on (or planned)
Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
Hello.
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?
Great :)
Antonio Gallardo
into better version control?
Sincerely,
Jay Freeman (saurik)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:18 AM
Subject: RE: [RT] Starting 2.2
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 13/8/03 16:37, Carsten
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Maybe start 2.5, just to be in line with Linux? ;-P
Screw that, let's just skip a couple major versions, everyone's doing it now, how does Cocoon 5.0
look? :)
Better yet, let's just change the name alltogether:
Cocoon XP
Cocoon MX
Cocoon MX 2004
I just love
Tony Collen wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Maybe start 2.5, just to be in line with Linux? ;-P
Screw that, let's just skip a couple major versions, everyone's doing it
now, how does Cocoon 5.0 look? :)
Better yet, let's just change the name alltogether:
Cocoon XP
Cocoon MX
Cocoon MX 2004
I
Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote:
Has any thought been put into the next time we have to create another new
repository should be the day we look into better version control?
Amen! Personally I'd +1 the subversion switch in any moment.
Ciao,
--
Gianugo Rabellino
Pro-netics s.r.l. -
Geoff Howard wrote:
What about renaming the next release to an unpronounceable set of
symbols, like Prince, or that Led Zepplin album? I'd suggest !#.
How about: Cocoon Interrobang
It would be pronounced, Cocoon?!
In all seriousness, I'm all for 2.2, but what sorts of loose ends are
there
Timothy Larson wrote:
I also wondered about Subversion when the repositories started multiplying :)
Is this a possibility? Is there a good CVS-Subversion repository converter?
What's good? The Subversion project has a converter, last time
I checked they said it still can't convert branches, and
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Timothy Larson wrote:
I also wondered about Subversion when the repositories started
multiplying :)
Is this a possibility? Is there a good CVS-Subversion repository
converter?
What's good? The Subversion project has a converter, last time
I checked they said it still
Berin Loritsch wrote:
What's good? The Subversion project has a converter, last time
I checked they said it still can't convert branches, and that this
was *the* killer for declaring SVN to be production ready. Trunk
only CVS repositories seem to work for a long time already
(disclaimer: gathered
Tony Collen wrote:
Geoff Howard wrote:
What about renaming the next release to an unpronounceable set of
symbols, like Prince, or that Led Zepplin album? I'd suggest !#.
How about: Cocoon Interrobang
It would be pronounced, Cocoon?!
Actually, my proposal could be pronounced bang and pound
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
On 13/8/03 16:37, Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's do simple steps perhaps:
Do you think that we should start a new repository? This is
equivalent to saying we start a new major version (2.2).
(if the answer is yes, we can talk about the
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I don't clearly understand what you want to achieve...
It's plain simple :) Now, the usual way would be to create
a new repository (cocoon-2.2) and copy everything from 2.1
in there.
Then we have two branches which require syncing which can
be a real pita. My approach is
On 13/8/03 16:37, Carsten Ziegeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, let's do simple steps perhaps:
Do you think that we should start a new repository? This is
equivalent to saying we start a new major version (2.2).
(if the answer is yes, we can talk about the layout).
YES! :-) As I have few
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
...
Hmm, yes, but we could start the 2.2 repo with the current core source,
so we have a starting point. I expect that blocks will require longer
discussions and I personally don't want to wait with 2.2 for this.
I'm wondering. What are you personally planning which
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Ok, let's do simple steps perhaps:
Do you think that we should start a new repository? This is
equivalent to saying we start a new major version (2.2).
(if the answer is yes, we can talk about the layout).
You ask for the
Title: RE: [RT] Starting 2.2
/me feels that you are trying to solve some problem without
stating what
the problem is
Vadim
Planning a IRC block with a mIRC log generator and all ? Great !
;)
fabien.
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-devm=106077110314347w=2
Stefano:
the road to real blocks: how to build it minimizing the impact on
the existing code and with complete back compatibility (yes, it's
possible!)
Here's my own Mini-RT:
If you've used a BSD, you've
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
I don't clearly understand what you want to achieve...
It's plain simple :) Now, the usual way would be to create a new repository
(cocoon-2.2) and copy everything from 2.1 in there.
Then we have two branches which require syncing which can
Ok, let's do simple steps perhaps:
Do you think that we should start a new repository? This is
equivalent to saying we start a new major version (2.2).
(if the answer is yes, we can talk about the layout).
Carsten
Tony Collen wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-devm=106077110314347w=2
Stefano:
the road to real blocks: how to build it minimizing the impact on
the existing code and with complete back compatibility (yes, it's
possible!)
Here's my own Mini-RT:
snip/
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Ok, let's do simple steps perhaps:
Do you think that we should start a new repository? This is
equivalent to saying we start a new major version (2.2).
(if the answer is yes, we can talk about the layout).
You ask for the solution to a problem that's not defined... Why
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
...
Hmm, yes, but we could start the 2.2 repo with the current core source,
so we have a starting point. I expect that blocks will require longer
discussions and I personally don't want to wait with 2.2 for this.
34 matches
Mail list logo
