8 Apr
2011
8 Apr
'11
3:15 p.m.
For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn for the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
WDYT ?
--
Thomas Mortagne
8 Apr
8 Apr
3:20 p.m.
On Apr 8, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn for
the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
WDYT ?
+1 good idea!
-Vincent
3:44 p.m.
On 04/08/2011 03:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn for
the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
+1. An alternative would be to not have a 3.0.1 at all.
This strategy should be applied for the 2.7 branch.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
4:25 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 15:44, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On 04/08/2011 03:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
Yes I tough about that but lets say the branch is here and if there is
something really blocker we have this solution for 3.0.
For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn
for the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
+1. An alternative would be to not have a 3.0.1 at all.
This strategy should be applied for the 2.7 branch.
+1 anyway we are supposed to since we already have a stable branch
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
18 Apr
18 Apr
5:33 p.m.
Hi Thomas,
On 04/08/2011 04:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn for
the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
WDYT ?
I don't see what's the problem with using git for 3.0 branch. I thought
git was better at branching and merging than svn. I tried a few merges
and they all worked fine and anyway it's easier to resolve a merge
conflict than to manually merge everything.
I'm -1 for using *only* svn for 3.0 branch. I'm fine with being able to
use both. Note that we already have the 3.0 and 2.7 branches on git and
I already did a few commits on both of them.
Thanks,
Marius
7:15 p.m.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 17:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 04/08/2011 04:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
My proposal has nothing to do with merging/branching, it's simply that
in trunk the whole platform is one repository which is not true for
3.0 so you only have core and none of application/plugins/skins and
even web for 3.0 since theses would need to be in their own repository
like we had in github before the refactoring
For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn
for the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
WDYT ?
I don't see what's the problem with using git for 3.0 branch. I thought
git was better at branching and merging than svn. I tried a few merges
and they all worked fine and anyway it's easier to resolve a merge
conflict than to manually merge everything.
I'm -1 for using *only* svn for 3.0 branch. I'm fine with being able to
use both. Note that we already have the 3.0 and 2.7 branches on git and
I already did a few commits on both of them.
Thanks,
Marius
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
21 Apr
21 Apr
2:30 a.m.
On 04/18/2011 07:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 17:33, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
I don't think this is a problem. Most tools/applications don't need to
be re-released, and even on SVN this would be hard, since we'd have to
create a branch from a released tag, and we don't do that very often.
The same principle can be applied on git, and we actually pulled
colibri-1.27 into the xwiki-2.7 branch.
In consequence, I'm changing my vote to use only git from now on, even
for 2.7 and 3.0 bugfix releases.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Hi Thomas,
On 04/08/2011 04:15 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
My proposal has nothing to do with merging/branching, it's simply that
in trunk the whole platform is one repository which is not true for
3.0 so you only have core and none of application/plugins/skins and
even web for 3.0 since theses would need to be in their own repository
like we had in github before the refactoring For simplicity I suggest we keep working on svn
for the 3.0 branch.
The project organization is very different between 3.1 and 3.0 and I
don't see us doing the same refactoring on 3.0 branch.
It means merging stuff by hand but it's not very hard.
WDYT ?
I don't see what's the problem with using git for 3.0 branch. I thought
git was better at branching and merging than svn. I tried a few merges
and they all worked fine and anyway it's easier to resolve a merge
conflict than to manually merge everything.
I'm -1 for using *only* svn for 3.0 branch. I'm fine with being able to
use both. Note that we already have the 3.0 and 2.7 branches on git and
I already did a few commits on both of them.
4897
days inactive
4910
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol