Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I think that Jeremy's point is one part of the discussion. The other is
how do we break up Geronimo so that people can mix and match pieces and
still get a stable, functioning, product.
I was also hoping being able to designate certain modules as stable
would assi
On May 30, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 5/30/2005 10:43 PM:
On May 30, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The problem we have currently is that there is no continuity
between our releases - the APIs, deployment plans, etc. have all
changed
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 5/30/2005 10:43 PM:
On May 30, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The problem we have currently is that there is no continuity between
our releases - the APIs, deployment plans, etc. have all changed
incompatibly between them. This was fine with milestones;
On May 30, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The problem we have currently is that there is no continuity
between our releases - the APIs, deployment plans, etc. have all
changed incompatibly between them. This was fine with milestones;
however, when we do a production release users n
On May 30, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Well, it does if you want to avoid getting the entire history of the
project when you do a co. That's really the issue.
That's really a layout issue. You put the trunk, branches, and
tags,
On 5/30/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >
> > There most certainly is tagging in SVN. Albeit the concept of tagging
> > in SVN is very different from CVS. The same is true for branches in
> > SVN as well. SVN just makes copies of everything because the SVN
> > d
Bruce Snyder wrote:
There most certainly is tagging in SVN. Albeit the concept of tagging
in SVN is very different from CVS. The same is true for branches in
SVN as well. SVN just makes copies of everything because the SVN
developers made the assumption that disk space is cheap. This doesn't
mea
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Well, it does if you want to avoid getting the entire history of the
> project when you do a co. That's really the issue.
That's really a layout issue. You put the trunk, branches, and
tags, "somewhere". If you put them all under the s
On May 30, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 30, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since
there is
On May 30, 2005, at 3:59 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
There most certainly is tagging in SVN. Albeit the concept of tagging
in SVN is very different from CVS. The same is true for branches in
SVN as well. SVN just makes copies of everything because the SVN
developers made the assumption that disk sp
On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> > On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since there is
> >> no notion of a tag or branch, no m
On May 30, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since there is
no notion of a tag or branch, no matter how you slice and dice,
either you branch to a different root when you cut a
On May 30, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since there is
no notion of a tag or branch, no matter how you slice and dice,
either you branch to a different root when you cut
On 5/30/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since there is
> no notion of a tag or branch, no matter how you slice and dice,
> either you branch to a different root when you cut a version, or you
> have to get the whole history
I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since there is
no notion of a tag or branch, no matter how you slice and dice,
either you branch to a different root when you cut a version, or you
have to get the whole history anytime you checkout anything...
geir
On May 28, 2005, at
On 5/28/05, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, SVN's repo for geronimo could have been set up in a modular
> approach instead of a monolithic trunk, and act similarly to CVS.
Could have been? It still can be. See the svn move command. I've used
it to restructure SVN repos and it
Actually, SVN's repo for geronimo could have been set up in a modular
approach instead of a monolithic trunk, and act similarly to CVS.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 5/28/2005 7:10 AM:
On May 27, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 5/28/2005 7:10 AM:
On May 27, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:38 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/
On May 27, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:38 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/module
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Anything in trunk or branch is unstable. Anything in tag is stable.
A tag though represents a single point in time. We really need stable
and unstable branches as I tried to characterise them in the mail that
started this thread.
We can easily support your scenar
Brian K. Wallace wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
| Brian K. Wallace wrote:
|
|>
|> Wouldn't the proper use of svn:externals take care of a lot of this?
|> have svn co geronimo basically read from the externals to pull whatever
|> modules (as well as other components) you want while letting each modu
David Blevins wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:51 PM:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 04:38:45PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:52 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I don't particularly care for odd/even designations for
stable/unstable. Maybe that was a coincidence in your example.
I'm not tied to any of the names - it was deliberate but illustrative.
I do think it would be use
--- Stefan Arentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 27, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
> >
> So, what I would really like to see wrt Geronimo is
> an absolute
> minimal server with add-on packages for things like
> a web container,
> jms provider, etc. You want to host a web app?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
| Brian K. Wallace wrote:
|
|>
|> Wouldn't the proper use of svn:externals take care of a lot of this?
|> have svn co geronimo basically read from the externals to pull whatever
|> modules (as well as other components) you want w
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I don't particularly care for odd/even designations for
stable/unstable. Maybe that was a coincidence in your example.
I'm not tied to any of the names - it was deliberate but illustrative. I
do think it would be useful for users to be able to tell just from a
jar
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 04:38:45PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
> >
> >>David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>This one
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
> >>> ../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:38 PM:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction
Why would we have two versions of transacti
Brian K. Wallace wrote:
Wouldn't the proper use of svn:externals take care of a lot of this?
have svn co geronimo basically read from the externals to pull whatever
modules (as well as other components) you want while letting each module
handle its own stable/unstable structure? [obviously have
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction
Why would we have two versions of transaction?
I actually think there are going to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
|
|
| Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
|
|> David Blevins wrote:
|>
|> This one
|>
|>>
|>> ../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
|>> ../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction
|>>
| Why would we ha
Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction
Why would we have two versions of transaction?
Regards,
Alan
David Blevins wrote:
This one
../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction
--
Jeremy
Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 5/27/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the reasons for going with a modular structure in the first place
was to make the totality more manageable while still being able to
develop each module. For small projects I would agree it is probably not
worth it
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 06:33:49PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2005, at 4:25 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> >Yea, I was just about to post that. Stable/unstable refers to
> >branches.
> >
>
> But jeremy is right here (but forgot to say it) - because we're using
> SVN, you
On 5/27/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the reasons for going with a modular structure in the first place
> was to make the totality more manageable while still being able to
> develop each module. For small projects I would agree it is probably not
> worth it, but most large
David Blevins wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
The
On May 27, 2005, at 4:25 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Yea, I was just about to post that. Stable/unstable refers to
branches.
But jeremy is right here (but forgot to say it) - because we're using
SVN, you want to keep the branches in a separate root so that
svn co geronimo
doesn't brin
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the final
> >push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just branch for
> >the stable, and head is unstable?
> >
>
> The names
Yea, I was just about to post that. Stable/unstable refers to branches.
-David
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:18:03PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
> final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
> branch f
Stefan
This is exactly what we have been aiming for :-)
To a large extent you can already do this today. You can mix-and-match
the different modules simply by providing a custom configuration plan.
As a concrete example, this is what we did at Gluecode to build the JOE
SE product which aimed
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 advant
On 5/27/05, Brian K. Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Security-wise it is also a nightmare. There is so much stuff running in
> | the container that I have no idea of. I usually bind the instance to
> | localhost and do port translation for those TCP/IP services that need
> | to be expos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Arentz wrote:
| ...
|
| Security-wise it is also a nightmare. There is so much stuff running in
| the container that I have no idea of. I usually bind the instance to
| localhost and do port translation for those TCP/IP services that need
|
I'm worried that it would be a giant hassle to try to assemble a
geronimo that is 90% stable and 10% unstable.
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 appropriat
On May 27, 2005, at 8:25 PM, Brian K. Wallace wrote:
...
I'm not a committer, nor have I been more than an observer to what
Geronimo is doing and where it's going - primarily because everything
I've seen has placed it in the JBoss realm. I've used JBoss for
quite a
while and am always amaze
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Arentz wrote:
| On May 27, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
|
|> Stefan brings up the question of whether we want to release sub-
|> modules of Geronimo separately. I think this is a good idea and would
|> propose the following restructu
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
so we have /trunk and /branches/stable and /branches/unstable, the
former for release work, and the latter for really nutty stuff that
people want to work on, and head is where mainline development
continues?
Who's resp
On May 27, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Stefan brings up the question of whether we want to release sub-
modules of Geronimo separately. I think this is a good idea and
would propose the following restructure of the tree to move in this
direction.
Let me just explain my motivatio
On Fri, 27 May 2005, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> so we have /trunk and /branches/stable and /branches/unstable, the
> former for release work, and the latter for really nutty stuff that
> people want to work on, and head is where mainline development
> continues?
Who's responsible fo
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 5/27/2005 12:27 PM:
BTW, however we resolve stable and unstable, I really do like the
idea of a separate sandbox tree. That will make things very clear to
people.
I like that idea as well.
Regards,
Alan
On May 27, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On May 27, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not
just branch for the stab
On May 27, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
The names are just suggestions
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the final
push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just branch for
the stable, and head is unstable?
The names are just suggestions - "trunk", "head", "unstable", whatever.
The important t
BTW, however we resolve stable and unstable, I really do like the
idea of a separate sandbox tree. That will make things very clear to
people.
geir
On May 27, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certi
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
geir
On May 27, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Stefan brings up the question of whether we want to release
56 matches
Mail list logo
