On 18/10/2011 19:55, Simon Pepping wrote:
I merged the ComplexScripts branch into trunk. Result:
Hi Simon,
As well of the question of how to do the merge there is also the
question should we do the merge? Of course this is a valuable feature to
the community, and Glenn has invested a lot of time in its development
but is it truely production ready? I asked Vincent to take a look at the
branch earlier in the year as it's a feature we also need, but he had
several concerns that have not be adequately answered. Take a look at
comment #30; https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687#c30
I'm not sure why Vincent describes it as a "brief look" because he spent
several days on it. I also asked Peter to take a look and he had similar
concerns. 2 or 3 letter variable names are a barrier for any committer
wanting to maintain this code and I don't think it is a sufficient
argument to say that a pre-requisite to maintaining this code is to be a
domain expert. I would hope that any experienced committer with a
debugger should be able to solve some bugs. Obviously certain problems
will require domain expertise, but the variables names are a key barrier
to being able to maintain this code.
I realise my comments might be a little controversial and I don't mean
any disrespect to Glenn or his work (which is largely excellent), but we
should at least discuss these topics before the merge is completed.
Thanks
Chris
--- Merging r981451 through r1185769 into '.':
Summary of conflicts:
Text conflicts: 58
Tree conflicts: 126
Most tree conflicts are probably an artifact of subversion. See
svn info lib/xmlgraphics-commons-1.5svn.jar|tail -n 4
Tree conflict: local add, incoming add upon merge
Source left: (file)
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/lib/xmlgraphics-commons-1.5svn.jar@981450
Source right: (file)
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/branches/Temp_ComplexScripts/lib/xmlgraphics-commons-1.5svn.jar@1185769
This will cause quite some work.
I also merged trunk into ComplexScripts. Result:
--- Merging r1177231 through r1185780 into '.':
Summary of conflicts:
Text conflicts: 2
Tree conflicts: 2
I resolved the text conflicts easily. Again the tree conflicts were
not real conflicts.
Both merges should result in the same code: trunk + ComplexScripts.
I did not commit the merge of trunk into ComplexScripts to the
repository. I do not think it would facilitate merging ComplexScripts
into trunk.
Simon
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:17:49PM +0800, Glenn Adams wrote:
With this latest patch, I am satisfied that there is sufficient testing and
stability in the CS branch to support its merger into trunk. Therefore, I
request that such a merge be accomplished after applying patch 5 to the CS
branch as described below.
