headers
Luke Daley | 2 Nov 2010 07:44
Gravatar

[groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

Are you guys using svn merge tracking or do you just manually apply diffs across branches to backport fixes?

Also, what is the general policy on back-porting fixes to 1.7 at the moment. In other words, what is the
status if the 1.7 line?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Jochen Theodorou | 2 Nov 2010 08:19
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

Luke Daley wrote:
> Are you guys using svn merge tracking or do you just manually apply
> diffs across branches to backport fixes?

I wrote myself a small script that does the manual apply

> Also, what is the general policy on back-porting fixes to 1.7 at the
> moment. In other words, what is the status if the 1.7 line?

anything that is not specific to 1.8 goes into 1.7 as well. For bugs it 
is in general both, for features normally only 1.8.

bye blackdrag

--

-- 
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org)
http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Russel Winder | 2 Nov 2010 10:42
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 08:19 +0100, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Luke Daley wrote:
> > Are you guys using svn merge tracking or do you just manually apply
> > diffs across branches to backport fixes?
> 
> I wrote myself a small script that does the manual apply

Sounds like a good reason to move to Git (I assume Bazaar and Mercurial
are no longer options for Groovy) as soon as possible.

> > Also, what is the general policy on back-porting fixes to 1.7 at the
> > moment. In other words, what is the status if the 1.7 line?
> 
> anything that is not specific to 1.8 goes into 1.7 as well. For bugs it 
> is in general both, for features normally only 1.8.
> 
> bye blackdrag
> 

--

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder <at> ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@...
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Permalink | Reply | 13 comments |
headers
Guillaume Laforge | 2 Nov 2010 10:45
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

We'll be moving to Git soon.
We were waiting for some big refactorings of the internals that Jochen
has done recently, and we also need to sync with Paul regarding our
modularity concerns.
But the move will certainly be done soon -- "soon" being a vague
notion, but we've never been closer to it :-)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:42, Russel Winder <russel@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 08:19 +0100, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>> Luke Daley wrote:
>> > Are you guys using svn merge tracking or do you just manually apply
>> > diffs across branches to backport fixes?
>>
>> I wrote myself a small script that does the manual apply
>
> Sounds like a good reason to move to Git (I assume Bazaar and Mercurial
> are no longer options for Groovy) as soon as possible.
>
>> > Also, what is the general policy on back-porting fixes to 1.7 at the
>> > moment. In other words, what is the status if the 1.7 line?
>>
>> anything that is not specific to 1.8 goes into 1.7 as well. For bugs it
>> is in general both, for features normally only 1.8.
>>
>> bye blackdrag
>>
>
> --
> Russel.
> =============================================================================
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Martin C. Martin | 2 Nov 2010 12:17

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

Out of curiosity (and I DON'T want to start a flame war), why Git rather 
than Mercurial?

Best,
Martin

On 11/2/2010 5:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> We'll be moving to Git soon.
> We were waiting for some big refactorings of the internals that Jochen
> has done recently, and we also need to sync with Paul regarding our
> modularity concerns.
> But the move will certainly be done soon -- "soon" being a vague
> notion, but we've never been closer to it :-)
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:42, Russel Winder<russel@...>  wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 08:19 +0100, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>> Luke Daley wrote:
>>>> Are you guys using svn merge tracking or do you just manually apply
>>>> diffs across branches to backport fixes?
>>> I wrote myself a small script that does the manual apply
>> Sounds like a good reason to move to Git (I assume Bazaar and Mercurial
>> are no longer options for Groovy) as soon as possible.
>>
>>>> Also, what is the general policy on back-porting fixes to 1.7 at the
>>>> moment. In other words, what is the status if the 1.7 line?
>>> anything that is not specific to 1.8 goes into 1.7 as well. For bugs it
>>> is in general both, for features normally only 1.8.
>>>
>>> bye blackdrag
>>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Guillaume Laforge | 2 Nov 2010 12:46
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

Please, no, not that debate, LOL :-D
Git is the alternative to SVN that Codehaus provides, so there's no
Mercurial or Bazaar available anyway.
Furthermore, even though Git may not necessarily the best options of
all, it became the option that a lot of other OSS projects and
companies have chosen, and it seems to be the choice of the majority
in that field.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:17, Martin C. Martin
<martin@...> wrote:
> Out of curiosity (and I DON'T want to start a flame war), why Git rather
> than Mercurial?
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On 11/2/2010 5:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>>
>> We'll be moving to Git soon.
>> We were waiting for some big refactorings of the internals that Jochen
>> has done recently, and we also need to sync with Paul regarding our
>> modularity concerns.
>> But the move will certainly be done soon -- "soon" being a vague
>> notion, but we've never been closer to it :-)
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:42, Russel Winder<russel@...>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 08:19 +0100, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Luke Daley wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Russel Winder | 2 Nov 2010 12:58
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:46 +0100, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> Please, no, not that debate, LOL :-D

I agree that the debate is not worth reopening, but . . . 

> Git is the alternative to SVN that Codehaus provides, so there's no
> Mercurial or Bazaar available anyway.

This is the sole determinant.  Codehaus has Subversion and Git, and
Subversion is no longer the right tool for FOSS projects (and hasn't
been for a number of years), and Groovy should remain a Codehaus
project, ergo Git.

> Furthermore, even though Git may not necessarily the best options of
> all, it became the option that a lot of other OSS projects and
> companies have chosen, and it seems to be the choice of the majority
> in that field.

Git definitely is dreadful in comparison to both Mercurial and Bazaar.
Some people/organizations have chosen Git over better system such as
Mercurial and Bazaar, but that was generally for fashion and tribe
reasons not for any sane reason of usability or fitness for purpose.

This whole "everyone else is doing so we must do it" argument is so
senselessly fatuous that we should probably ignore it at all times.  If
this argument were used to choose political systems then everyone would
immediately switch to (military) dictatorship since that is the most
popular form of government through the countries of the world.

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Luke Daley | 2 Nov 2010 13:02
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

I sincerely apologise.

On 02/11/2010, at 9:58 PM, Russel Winder <russel@...> wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 12:46 +0100, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>> Please, no, not that debate, LOL :-D
> 
> I agree that the debate is not worth reopening, but . . . 
> 
>> Git is the alternative to SVN that Codehaus provides, so there's no
>> Mercurial or Bazaar available anyway.
> 
> This is the sole determinant.  Codehaus has Subversion and Git, and
> Subversion is no longer the right tool for FOSS projects (and hasn't
> been for a number of years), and Groovy should remain a Codehaus
> project, ergo Git.
> 
>> Furthermore, even though Git may not necessarily the best options of
>> all, it became the option that a lot of other OSS projects and
>> companies have chosen, and it seems to be the choice of the majority
>> in that field.
> 
> Git definitely is dreadful in comparison to both Mercurial and Bazaar.
> Some people/organizations have chosen Git over better system such as
> Mercurial and Bazaar, but that was generally for fashion and tribe
> reasons not for any sane reason of usability or fitness for purpose.
> 
> This whole "everyone else is doing so we must do it" argument is so
> senselessly fatuous that we should probably ignore it at all times.  If
> this argument were used to choose political systems then everyone would
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Guillaume Laforge | 2 Nov 2010 13:02
Gravatar

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

I knew you'd jump in, Russel :-)

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:58, Russel Winder <russel@...> wrote:
> [...]
> This is the sole determinant.  Codehaus has Subversion and Git, and
> Subversion is no longer the right tool for FOSS projects (and hasn't
> been for a number of years), and Groovy should remain a Codehaus
> project, ergo Git.

Exactly.

> [...]
> This whole "everyone else is doing so we must do it" argument is so
> senselessly fatuous that we should probably ignore it at all times.

I agree, it's definitely not a good argument.
It's often an argument use in our companies and customers, where it's
easier to find skills for something that's used by a majority.

> If this argument were used to choose political systems then everyone
> would immediately switch to (military) dictatorship since that is the most
> popular form of government through the countries of the world.

Perhaps why project leads are called Despots at Codehaus :-)

--

-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Head of Groovy Development at SpringSource
http://www.springsource.com/g2one
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Alex Tkachman | 2 Nov 2010 13:32
Picon

Re: [groovy-dev] How are branches managed .

Why not GitHub?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@...> wrote:
> Please, no, not that debate, LOL :-D
> Git is the alternative to SVN that Codehaus provides, so there's no
> Mercurial or Bazaar available anyway.
> Furthermore, even though Git may not necessarily the best options of
> all, it became the option that a lot of other OSS projects and
> companies have chosen, and it seems to be the choice of the majority
> in that field.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:17, Martin C. Martin
<martin@...> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity (and I DON'T want to start a flame war), why Git rather
>> than Mercurial?
>>
>> Best,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 11/2/2010 5:45 AM, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>>>
>>> We'll be moving to Git soon.
>>> We were waiting for some big refactorings of the internals that Jochen
>>> has done recently, and we also need to sync with Paul regarding our
>>> modularity concerns.
>>> But the move will certainly be done soon -- "soon" being a vague
>>> notion, but we've never been closer to it :-)
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:42, Russel Winder<russel@...>  wrote:
>>>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane