On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 2013, at 22:32 , Russell Branca <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mar 18, 2013, at 21:06 , Russell Branca <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> Last week I noticed the fauxton branch and master branch have drifted > >> quite > >>> apart, and are a couple hundred commits different in either direction. > I > >>> created a branch 'fauxton-rebase' [1] that is the fauxton rebased on > top > >> of > >>> the laster master as of friday. > >> > >> Regular rebasing should make parallel branches manageable, or am I > missing > >> something? > >> > > > > Regular rebasing will keep the branches synchronized, but it will rewrite > > the history underneath peoples' feet. I moved my initial rebase over to > the > > fauxton-rebase branch to avoid messing with anyone currently working in > the > > fauxton branch. I don't mind having a parallel branch for Fauxton, and I > > can take care of bringing in the latest changes, but if we go that route > I > > would prefer to do merges rather than rebases given we have a number of > > people working on the branch now. I know how some people feel about doing > > merges ;-) so I figured the best bet was to just throw everything in > master > > and dodge the problem entirely. If anyone else has a better suggestion, > I'm > > happy to hear it. > > Fair enough :) > > > >>> If there are no objections I would like to bring the fauxton-rebase > >> branch > >>> into master to simplify development workflow and keeping both branches > >>> updated. > >> > >> > >> No objection per se, just: > >> > >> - Since master is poised to be the 1.4.x release branch and before long > >> the > >> 1.4.0 release, is Fauxton in good shape to be released? If not as the > >> final > >> replacement of Futon, at least as a preview alongside the regular > Futon? > >> > > > > Right now Fauxton is self contained and isolated from Futon, it lives at > > /_utils/fauxton/index.html so both can be run in parallel. Its definitely > > not in feature parity with Futon yet, but the things that are there work > > reasonably well, and the more eyes we can get on it the better. > > So would you say shipping Fauxton as a “PREVIEW” or “EXPERIMENTAL” in 1.4.0 > is sensible? I’d like to leave this decision with the Fauxton devs. > Yeah I would like to bring it as Preview or Experimental release assuming none of the Fauxton devs or anyone else has an objection. This would obviously be a what you see is what you get type of release, with a lot of functionality still not built, but the only blocker in terms of functionality I see, is adding an auth module, as right now Fauxton assumes you're in admin party. I created COUCHDB-1715 to cover this. The relevant building blocks are in place to add auth, so this should be relatively straightforward. > If yes, let’s master it! > > Let's do it!! > >> - Can we double check that all the legal stuff is taken care of? > >> > > > > Good call, I still have COUCHDB-1710 open to update LICENSE with the > > relevant dependency license info. I'll take care of that today or > tomorrow. > > Cool, we should consider this blocking for the merge to master, just > so we are entirely clean for the next release. > Agreed 100%, I'll get that resolved before we make any changes with the branches. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > > -Russell
