Please ignore this.. (hit send accidentally) Anita
--- anita kulshreshtha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What "user friendliness" are you talking about? > > > > --jason > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:25 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote: > > > > > I would also prefer to see any changes to improve the > > > maintainability and user friendliness of M2 build be held off > > until > > > the server assembly is functional. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Anita > > > > > > --- David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:25 AM, John Sisson wrote: > > >> > > >>> Jacek Laskowski wrote: > > >>>> On 7/3/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>> NOTE... the m2 build in trunk is already broken... this > patches > > >> help > > >>>>> FIX MANY OF THOSE PROBLEMS! > > >>>> > > >>>> NOTED, but... it's not broken. it has never worked so we can > > >> pretend > > >>>> to call it broken. It's a small, but important point we cannot > > >>>> dismiss. > > >>>> > > >>>>> Since the official build is still m1 and this will not affect > > the > > >> m1 > > >>>>> build, I don't see why your point about breakage is > applicable > > at > > >> > > >>>>> all. > > >>>> ... > > >>>>> When I first created the m1 build for Geronimo years ago > there > > >> were > > >>>>> certainly a few moments of breakage due to build changes, but > > >> since > > >>>>> there was no commit by committee junk going on then it was > easy > > >> to > > >>>>> just fix when things happened to get a bit askew. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The branch idea was just to make it easier to actually make > > >>>>> progress, > > >>>>> as I am move on this stuff way way faster than the lot of you > > can > > >>>>> react to emails and JIRAs which often (as this one did) need > > >> several > > >>>>> sets of emails to clarify. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's the point in RTC - discussing, discussing, over and > over > > >>>> again. > > >>>> I'm not in favour of RTC, but some of its rules are fine. It > > >> fosters > > >>>> discussions we lacked. That's the main point of RTC. Isn't it > > >> funny > > >>>> that you've mentioned it as an argument against RTC? > > >>>> > > >>>> What's wrong with committing changes made in the branch back > to > > >> trunk > > >>>> once they've been tested? My proposal is not to wait until the > > >>>> migration is done, but rather apply it in small portions, > > >> gradually. > > >>>> It should work, shouldn't it? I'd greatly appreciate your > > comment > > >> on > > >>>> it as I guess I don't see the whole picture and keep thinking > > the > > >>>> branch might help when others have already seen it would fall > > >> short. > > >>>> > > >>> Can we avoid the concerns that have been aired regarding svn > > >>> merging issues when directories are reorganised by leaving the > > >>> reorganization of directories as a last phase of the m2 > > migration? > > >>> > > >>> I would have thought that we could move further along with the > > >>> migration without reorganizing directories (AFAIK, maven should > > be > > >> > > >>> able to work with existing directory structures, although doing > > so > > >> > > >>> may incur more work). We would also need to coordinate the > > >>> reorganization of directories with the owners of other branches > > >>> from trunk, to minimize the impact on them. > > >> > > >> I would prefer to wait to reorganize the directories until after > > the > > >> > > >> work in the dead-1.2 branch is merged with trunk. I plan to go > > back > > >> > > >> to this activity now. Other committers may wish to note that > > merging > > >> > > >> the work in dead-1.2 should not need RTC as it is already part > of > > a > > >> main development line. > > >> > > >> thanks > > >> david jencks > > >> > > >>> > > >>> John > > >>>>> --jason > > >>>> > > >>>> Jacek > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
