Am Di, den 16.03.2004 schrieb Carsten Ziegeler um 07:58: > Hi Stephan, could you please revert your changes? Joerg already > asked you to do so and I think we should either revert or change > the current behaviour. It's really annoying to have all this "Dismiss" > messages. There are hundreds of them that weren't there before.
The "Dismiss: ..." messages means only that the patch wasn't applied. I can easily omit these messages. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joerg Heinicke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:03 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/tools/src/anttasks > > XConfToolTask.java > > > > On 12.03.2004 14:29, Stephan Michels wrote: > > > > > In the orginal form of the blocks-build.xsl, we had > > separate targets > > > for the patch files. But it was incredible slow. Then I merge these > > > targets to one target, and rewrote to the XConf task to a > > > MatchingTask, which allow to execute more than one patches. > > > But it doesn't preserves the dependencies, then Carsten cuts the > > > target in to several target again, to solve this problem. > > > Now, with latest change it works again. > > > > > > I tend to agree with you Joerg, separate targets are much > > more elegant. > > > But in the real world I have real problems, like a build > > time von 4min > > > 25sec on a 2.4GHz Intel system. Which is, by the way, unacceptable, > > > IMHO. > > > > > > So, should I revert the change to have a more elegant build > > file with > > > bigger build time?! .... ehrmm ... I think not. > > > > To be honest, such statements enrage me at least a bit. You > > talk about time, but you forget the time to maintain this > > additional dependency resolving. Starting with the missing > > .xweb patches you have now to go on searching for bugs - > > things that already have been working. For having a look on > > this issue I removed ojb, database and hsqldb block from the > > excluded ones. A simple build (Cocoon was previously built > > with only cforms and xsp enabled) - and many patches of those > > blocks were not applied. Only a clean build made it working - > > partly, see above. If I need to do every time a clean build > > to get this thing correctly working, I don't see how you can > > gain time. This might be only a simple bug somewhere, maybe > > only a typo - but I talk about the principle - which, I know, > > often ends in obstinacy. Was a minor bug, should now be solved. > > IMO, yes, we should revert it. I prefer the elegancy much > > more about the speed. And to add Carsten's argument: > > Additionally it forces us "keeping the dependencies correct". > > > > Excuse me, if I have forgotten to add 'rant' around it ... Yes, you have. But okay, when I will revert my changes to version 1.17 from 2003/05/05 Stephan.
