Hi *, if Leonardo does as discussed, we can have both the 1.1 version and 1.2 from the same branch. (I don't see why this shouldn't be possible).
regards, Martin On 3/4/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Leonardo Uribe wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> The list of components is fine. And I very much appreciate all > >> your work > >> on this and the tomahawk bugs you've been fixing recently. > >> > >> However at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would > >> like to > >> point out that AFAIK there has still been no vote on whether to > >> have a > >> tomahawk 2.0 at all. And I would vote -1 on such a thing; abandoning > >> tomahawk users on JSF1.1 would be bad, and the community is just > >> not big > >> enough to support two parallel tomahawk branches. The fact that > >> you are > >> about the only person to commit to tomahawk in the last month should > >> make that obvious. The minor benefits of a JSF1.2-specific tomahawk > >> branch are far outweighed by the pain. > >> > >> > >> I have a different opinion about this. Sooner or later we have to > >> upgrade this lib (I think better sooner than later). > >> The component generator does the big part of the update (write > >> component and tag classes), > >> only minor changes on the renderers was done to make all examples > >> work (the big part > >> of the work is on build module). Move changes from one branch to > >> another should be an > >> easy task. Passing tomahawk to 1.2 let us see more bug on myfaces > >> 1.2, and upgrade > >> tomahawk 1.1 apps should be easy. JSF 1.2 has more than one year and > >> JSF 2.0 is > >> coming. The only thing to be taken into account is continue doing > >> releases on > >> 1.1 and that's all. > >> > >> It's a matter of subjective opinions (all valid of course). But in my > >> humble opinion, better > >> move forward than stay quiet. Not one step back, nor to catch momentum. > >> > >> regards > >> > >> Leonardo Uribe > > > Scott O'Bryan schrieb: > > I agree with Leonardo totally. Just because you have a 2.0 branch > > does not mean that you drop support for 1.1. It simply means that > > things which cannot be made 1.1 compatible continue to migrate and > > that the stuff which is already in place, embraces any emerging > > standards. Furthermore, it gives Tomahawk users a much clearer > > upgrade path into the new technologies. Trinidad, for instance, has > > had a 1.2 branch for a few months and we are totally seeing > > enhancements going into both branches. Things go into 1.2 as the > > exception, not the rule. > > > > I fully support making sure that 1.1 continues to move ahead because > > 1.1 is MyFace's largest community of users. But PREVENTING projects > > from moving to the new technology only hurts those renderkits and > > helps no-one.... One of the key issues with open source is that > > developers work on what they want/need to work on. If people in the > > community continue to restrict developers from supporting the new > > standards for a renderkit, the renderkit will loose developers and > > support. Instead of having active development in a project with a > > little more emphasis on the later standards, you'll end up with no > > development at all. > > Argh..top-posting in reply to a thread that already has bottom-posting > established as a convention is REALLY ANNOYING. I've therefore moved the > reply text to a sane position. > > > The thing I am really concerned about here is ensuring that there are > enough tomahawk developers to actually keep the project alive. Therefore > in this case, I think that only the opinions of those who are actually > active developers count. Scott, it's all very well you saying that both > 1.1 and 1.2 should be supported, but someone has to actually do that, > and I don't see your name in the commit list... > > Here's some actual stats on commits since feb 2007 (ie for the last 12 > months) > > baranda: 3 > bommel: 1 (website only) > cagatay: 14 > dennisbyrne: 2 > gmuellan: 6 > grantsmith: 13 > imario: 10 > jlust: 1 > manolito: 10 (mostly buildsystem fixes) > matzew: 4 > mkienenb: 14 > mmarinschek: 8 > pmahoney: 24 > skitching: 42 > tomsp: 2 > werpu: 4 > > total patches: 158 in 12 months --> 13 per month -> 3 per week > > Hmm..interestingly, lu4242 (Leonardo) does not appear on this list, > except for one of matzew's patches that credits leonardo. All Leonardo's > patches must have been to sandbox or the "tomahawk 2.0 branch". I think > we can count Leonardo among the active developer pool anyway. > > By the way, a lot of the above commits are checking in patches provided > by other people; sorry I can't properly credit them here. > > The numbers for myself (skitching) are somewhat misleading; a big chunk > of those are just on one component, the t:calendar. And likewise for > pmahoney; most of the commits are just for the schedule component. > > This really does not look like a lot of people or traffic. > > Now let's look at JIRA: > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK > > There are 390 open issues of severity Major or above. So at the current > commit rate, that will take 2.5 years to clear them, assuming one patch > fixes one issue. > > In this situation, we really do NOT need to increase the amount of work > it takes to maintain Tomahawk. > > Leonardo, are you saying that moving to a code-generation approach will > allow us to maintain a single trunk of code that can then be "generated" > into JSF1.1 *and* JSF1.2 compatible variants without additional effort? > That would be nice, but I do find it hard to believe... > > And I am still puzzled about what these gains a JSF1.2-specific tomahawk > will get. Ok, so we get to use the new for-loops and generic > collections. Excuse me for not getting up and dancing around the room; > these are nice but not *that* exciting. JSF1.2 *is* generally > backwards-compatible, so by sticking with JSF1.1 we support *both* sets > of users with just one trunk of code. > > On the issue of using the maven-faces-plugin code generator, I'm a > little less concerned; -0 would be my vote. I believe it will raise the > complexity bar for external patch contributors and new committers which > again is not what we need right now. However it's not fatal. > > The splitting of code into two trunks means checking each patch against > both branches. This duplication of work, unit tests, etc. is the bit I'm > really afraid will lead to the JSF1.1 branch of tomahawk dying from > neglect very shortly after any "tomahawk 2.0" release. The only people > who can stop that are active committers - and at least one (me) is very > worried. > > Regards, > Simon > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
