Re: Module restructure

[Jeremy Boynes]

David Jencks wrote:
I'm worried that it would be a giant hassle to try to assemble a 
geronimo that is 90% stable and 10% unstable.

I would have thought that would be an assembly that used 90% stable 
module versions and 10% unstable ones. Where would the hassle be?

I also don't see the advantage of this plan over simply creating a 
branch whenever someone wants to do some disruptive experimentation, and 
merging the results back in when appropriate.  This worked fine for me 
for the work I did rewriting the jetty deployer. If I understand the svn 
docs this is more in line with "standard svn practice".


The big problem is the merge back. If the main branch is continually 
evolving then that becomes very painful. The intention here was to have 
an unstable tree that is continually and rapidly evolving and a stable 
tree where you can easily merge to because it isn't.

The other challenge is to support collaborative development of new 
features where more than one person can be working on it. That means 
making it easy to checkout and build the unstable tree.

There is nothing precluding what you are saying, either within the 
unstable tree or in the sandbox.

--
Jeremy