Re: m2migration branch is available
Hey, no worries. I don't have the spare cycles to work on the M2 migration myself, so whatever method you guys think is best, I'm all for it. I just wanted to make sure you're prepared for some pain down the road if you go the branch path, beacuse I think it will be nasty. If I were doing this work, I think I'd want to escape RTC to do it -- perhaps by freezing development on trunk, working on a branch, then voting to replace trunk with branch under the rules for revolutionaries. Or by getting the PMC to bless working on M2 in trunk without RTC applying to the M2 changes. Or by getting the PMC to +1 the principle and leave you free to implement the specifics as needed. Or by claiming that the M2 build is broken and that's clearly a bug and therefore you can do all this work under CTR for bug fixes. Again, if you think you can be equally productive working in a branch and then generating an RTC patch and applying it back to trunk, more power to you, and don't let me stand in the way. :) Thanks, Aaron On 7/5/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). ... > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address > my concern before taking this approach. (It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed at me). I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able to be committed to trunk. It may work. I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-)) > Aaron Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 7/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ Aaron here Jacek. I'm not sure that there was a consensus on this. If discussion died down on this it was because it's the 4th of July. Ok, you *might* be right, but should I vote for creating a branch for the work I think should be done in a branch? AFAIR, a branch doesn't need a vote, does it? I understand I could've been read as ignoring Aaron's points, which I didn't mean to have done. I do appologize for it. No worries. :) To be sure a branch doesn't need a vote. But this is a different situation. Multiple people are working on getting this done, it's not a the sandbox effort of an individual, e.g. Jan's servlet stuff or David's JACC stuff. Discussions are still going on and I have proposed that working in trunk on m2 still follows the RTC mandate in that m2 is not being used yet. Once the m2 team is happy w/ what we have, an RTC can be formed. Any minor changes, I don't fore see the need, that need to be done along the way can be handled with RTCs. Working in this manner has the added benefit of limiting the scope of the effort to just getting m2 working. Regards, Alan
Re: m2migration branch is available
On 7/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ Aaron here Jacek. I'm not sure that there was a consensus on this. If discussion died down on this it was because it's the 4th of July. Ok, you *might* be right, but should I vote for creating a branch for the work I think should be done in a branch? AFAIR, a branch doesn't need a vote, does it? I understand I could've been read as ignoring Aaron's points, which I didn't mean to have done. I do appologize for it. Alan Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). ... I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address my concern before taking this approach. (It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed at me). I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able to be committed to trunk. It may work. I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-)) I'm afraid that I have to agree w/ Aaron here Jacek. I'm not sure that there was a consensus on this. If discussion died down on this it was because it's the 4th of July. Regards, Alan
Re: m2migration branch is available
On 7/4/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). ... I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address my concern before taking this approach. (It seems that RTC is going to become a two-sided sword that's aimed at me). I didn't mean to be seen as 'ignoring you'. It was your concern that I paid attention to, but creating a branch is an option that does not need a vote or anything like that. Any committer can create a branch and it's up to him/her to use it in a way (s)he wishes. It was one of the possible action that although you'd raised a concern about might eventually pay off. The idea is to apply patches to trunk gradually once they're verified and tested. This way we won't fall into a trap where our work will be a waste of time and the changes won't be able to be committed to trunk. It may work. I've stepped up to keep the branch in sync with the trunk and am going to do it with your help (no matter you want it or not ;-)) Aaron Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Jason, INAL, but sections 10 B-E in their open source contract don't sound appropriate for ASF use to me. http://www.perforce.com/perforce/contracts/open_source.pdf We wouldn't want the situation where we have to uninstall it or Apache and the development community has to start paying for it after it is entrenched into our projects. Regards, John Jason Dillon wrote: FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for qualifying open source usage: http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html :-) --jason On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Jacek, When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD. Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've been through that before. I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address my concern before taking this approach. Thanks, Aaron On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-) The branch is available at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration. Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, we'll create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope not all is/will be lost ;-) Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation, so let's do it before they come back home ;-)) Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
On Jul 4, 2006, at 4:21 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this just wishful thinking? Well... both I guess. But given our reality its more of the later. Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths will be wrong. I don't see how this can end well. Unless there's a freeze in HEAD for the duration of the branch, which would mean we're just using the branch to work around RTC. The reason why I mention it over and over... is that Perforce can handle automating a bunch of this work. For example, to solve the issue you mention about patches. If you know the change number that the patch was done against, then you could create a new temporary branch based on that change number, then apply the patch, and then merge the private branch back into the trunk. Perforce is smart enough to realize what needs to merge and what has been merged already since it tracks integrations. It also knows what been moved and deleted and when you merge the changes will follow the code wherever it was moved to. It really is an excellent tool... for highly branched and dynamic environments Perforce really shines. --jason Thanks, Aaron On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for qualifying open source usage: http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html :-) --jason On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > Jacek, > > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've > often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated > and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in > the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending > directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a > branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where > we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD. > Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've > been through that before. > > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address > my concern before taking this approach. > > Thanks, >Aaron > > On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to >> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it >> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-) >> >> The branch is available at >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration. >> >> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, >> we'll >> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will >> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope >> not >> all is/will be lost ;-) >> >> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us >> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/ should >> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation, >> so let's do it before they come back home ;-)) >> >> Jacek >> >> -- >> Jacek Laskowski >> http://www.laskowski.net.pl >>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Sent a note in a related thread asking to have RTC suspended for this activity and let the work proceed in trunk directly. Aaron Mulder wrote: Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this just wishful thinking? Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths will be wrong. I don't see how this can end well. Unless there's a freeze in HEAD for the duration of the branch, which would mean we're just using the branch to work around RTC. Thanks, Aaron On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for qualifying open source usage: http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html :-) --jason On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > Jacek, > > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've > often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated > and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in > the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending > directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a > branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where > we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD. > Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've > been through that before. > > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address > my concern before taking this approach. > > Thanks, >Aaron > > On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to >> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it >> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-) >> >> The branch is available at >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration. >> >> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, >> we'll >> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will >> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope >> not >> all is/will be lost ;-) >> >> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us >> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should >> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation, >> so let's do it before they come back home ;-)) >> >> Jacek >> >> -- >> Jacek Laskowski >> http://www.laskowski.net.pl >>
Re: m2migration branch is available
Are you recommending that the project switch to Perforce, or is this just wishful thinking? Also, one more note on the merging -- If we change the directory layout in the branch, it will be very hard to merge any patches to HEAD into the branch to keep them in sync since all the patch paths will be wrong. I don't see how this can end well. Unless there's a freeze in HEAD for the duration of the branch, which would mean we're just using the branch to work around RTC. Thanks, Aaron On 7/4/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for qualifying open source usage: http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html :-) --jason On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > Jacek, > > When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a > concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch > to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple > revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I > understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've > often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated > and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in > the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending > directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a > branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where > we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD. > Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've > been through that before. > > I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the > branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a > commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means > this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address > my concern before taking this approach. > > Thanks, >Aaron > > On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to >> the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it >> *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-) >> >> The branch is available at >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration. >> >> Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, >> we'll >> create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will >> help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope >> not >> all is/will be lost ;-) >> >> Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us >> with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should >> count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation, >> so let's do it before they come back home ;-)) >> >> Jacek >> >> -- >> Jacek Laskowski >> http://www.laskowski.net.pl >>
Re: m2migration branch is available
FYI... Perforce may be commercial, but they provide free licenses for qualifying open source usage: http://perforce.com/perforce/opensource-faq.html :-) --jason On Jul 4, 2006, at 3:50 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: Jacek, When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD. Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've been through that before. I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address my concern before taking this approach. Thanks, Aaron On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-) The branch is available at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration. Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, we'll create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope not all is/will be lost ;-) Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation, so let's do it before they come back home ;-)) Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: m2migration branch is available
Jacek, When discussing whether a branch was appropriate, I expressed a concern that it would be difficult to merge changes from this branch to HEAD because SVN seems to have difficulty handling multiple revisions of add/delete/move/copy operations in a single merge (and I understand the M2 restructuring will involve a lot of that). I've often had problems where something is e.g. removed and then recreated and I try to apply and it refuses claiming that there's something in the way. The only way to proceed is to manually delete offending directories and then update. But that won't work for merging from a branch to HEAD -- it would effectively be a revolution operation where we would have to vote to delete HEAD and move the branch to HEAD. Then we lose the bug fixes that have been applied to HEAD and we've been through that before. I'm concerned that you ignored this concern and went ahead with the branch plan. In fact the only response I got was that perhaps a commercial source control system would be better. Perhaps that means this should have been an RTC operation so you were forced to address my concern before taking this approach. Thanks, Aaron On 7/4/06, Jacek Laskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Just created a branch - m2migration - for all our work pertaining to the M2 migration of Geronimo build. Everybody's welcome to work on it *without* RTC on. Revolutionary rules are enabled again! ;-) The branch is available at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/m2migration. Once we're ready to move a part of the work done in this branch, we'll create a patch and RTC'ed it to commit to trunk. I believe it will help those who are reluctant to work on the branch and give a hope not all is/will be lost ;-) Just to be clear: anybody who wants to learn M2 tricks and help us with the migration is welcome. Those who aren't committers can/should count on me to commit their work (my kids are away on their vacation, so let's do it before they come back home ;-)) Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
