On Sat, 20 Mar 2004, Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > Quoting Joe Germuska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > At 2:48 PM -0500 3/14/04, Ted Husted wrote: > > >I'd say we could branch what we have as 1.2 and start thinking of > > >the HEAD as 1.3. > > > > > >IMHO, the quickest way to sort out what we need to do with the > > >Struts-Chain RequestProcessor is to get it out there as the nightly > > >build. [Many hands make light work ;)] > > > > > >So, we could reserve the 1.2 for any desperate fixes (as we've done > > >before), but do anything resembling new development against the HEAD > > >(1.3). > > > > I might do something like this over the weekend, depending on my time > > (then again, I may not at all!) > > > > But if I did, I'd want to see if anyone had any strong feelings, or > > fixes they thought they'd like to get in before a branch, or... ? > > > > Or should all of this wait until we get the move to struts.apache.org > > settled? I'm assuming we'll reorganize CVS as part of that, into > > struts-core, struts-taglib, etc... > > I think there's a lot of merit in rationalizing the directory structures as part > of the move to TLP-ness.
Assuming we don't move to Subversion right now (see other thread), the move is effectively a CVS repo rename by the infrastructure folks, lock, stock and barrel. Any rationalisation is totally up to us. If we want to break up our existing repo, we have a couple of options: 1) One top-level 'struts' repo that we break down as we see fit. This option leaves everything in our control, since, as far as infrastructure@ is concerned, there is only one CVS repo. 2) Multiple top-level repos, one of which is a renamed version of our current repo, and the remainder of which are new empty repos. We would then migrate pieces of our current repo out to the new repos. 3) Same as (2) above, except that we don't ask for a repo rename, but just new repos, and we migrate everything ourselves to the appropriate new repo. While (3) is the "cleanest" insofar as we wouldn't have leftovers in the Attic of the renames repo, it's also a huge amount of work for us, and runs the risk of forgetting things. My preference is for (1). It is the simplest approach, and will allow us to move things around however we see fit, without having to decide up front which other repos we might want. If, at some point, we decide we do want other top-level repos, we can request them at that time. > > Speaking of that, can we/should > > we do anything to preserve CVS logs if we move files? Or will we > > start fresh? I think if we move the actual CVS files it will all be > > preserved, but I've never tried that. > > > > There are ways to preserve history, but I suspect there will be difficulties if > we decide to split up what has been a single repository (jakarta-struts) into > per-subpackage repositories. A guru on CVS would definitely be useful here. A CVS repo rename will preserve all of our history, obviously. After that, I can take care of preserving history whatever we decide to do (as long as we stay with CVS ;). It's slightly easier if we have only one repo, but it can still be done across repos. -- Martin Cooper > > > I'm interested in getting the Struts Chain stuff mainstreamed, but > > like I said, this may very well not be the weekend I start on it. In > > any case, I figured a branch would be cause for a little bit of > > discussion amongst committers. > > > > I'm going to focus some energy as well on commons-chain and struts-chain now > that JavaServer Faces is done. > > > Joe > > Craig > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
