Re: [Archetype] branching question

2007-04-25 Thread Raphaël Piéroni

2007/4/25, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Sorry, I don't quite understand this? Are you saying it's just
incompatible with what's in there already, or this now diverges from
compatibility with the current version?

Nope
I had incompatibility between my first descriptor proposition and my second.
It is solved for now. i had made a branch in the code not in the SCM.

Raphaël




I think it was the former, in which case you shouldn't need to do
anything - you can use the revision number to go back to, but since
it's not in use yet it's ok to make those breaking changes.

Hope I got that right.

- Brett

On 17/04/2007, at 8:51 PM, Raphaël Piéroni wrote:

> Hi,
>
> With the archetypeng stuff, i think i have reached
> a point in which i need advice.
>
> For what i can see, the current code seems useable.
>
> I am currently refactoring the proposed descriptor.
> This change will be incompatible with the current
> proposition, which mimics and enchance the
> actual behaviour.
>
> I think i need to reprensent this changing in the SCM,
> but i can't figure the right way:
>
> a) create a branch in the mojo repository (but the current code is in
> the sandbox)
> b) tag by hand a 0.1-alpha-1 version (with lazy concensus vote) and
> stay in the sandbox
> c) use the release plugin to release as version (idem vote) and stay
> in the sandbox
>
> I dislike c, and have a light preference for b.
>
> Thanks in advance for any answer.
>
> Regards,
>
> Raphaël

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Re: [Archetype] branching question

2007-04-24 Thread Brett Porter
Sorry, I don't quite understand this? Are you saying it's just  
incompatible with what's in there already, or this now diverges from  
compatibility with the current version?


I think it was the former, in which case you shouldn't need to do  
anything - you can use the revision number to go back to, but since  
it's not in use yet it's ok to make those breaking changes.


Hope I got that right.

- Brett

On 17/04/2007, at 8:51 PM, Raphaël Piéroni wrote:


Hi,

With the archetypeng stuff, i think i have reached
a point in which i need advice.

For what i can see, the current code seems useable.

I am currently refactoring the proposed descriptor.
This change will be incompatible with the current
proposition, which mimics and enchance the
actual behaviour.

I think i need to reprensent this changing in the SCM,
but i can't figure the right way:

a) create a branch in the mojo repository (but the current code is in
the sandbox)
b) tag by hand a 0.1-alpha-1 version (with lazy concensus vote) and
stay in the sandbox
c) use the release plugin to release as version (idem vote) and stay
in the sandbox

I dislike c, and have a light preference for b.

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Regards,

Raphaël


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



[Archetype] branching question

2007-04-17 Thread Raphaël Piéroni

Hi,

With the archetypeng stuff, i think i have reached
a point in which i need advice.

For what i can see, the current code seems useable.

I am currently refactoring the proposed descriptor.
This change will be incompatible with the current
proposition, which mimics and enchance the
actual behaviour.

I think i need to reprensent this changing in the SCM,
but i can't figure the right way:

a) create a branch in the mojo repository (but the current code is in
the sandbox)
b) tag by hand a 0.1-alpha-1 version (with lazy concensus vote) and
stay in the sandbox
c) use the release plugin to release as version (idem vote) and stay
in the sandbox

I dislike c, and have a light preference for b.

Thanks in advance for any answer.

Regards,

Raphaël