4:26 p.m.
>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:07:23 -0500, Dan Allen
<dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> said:
DA> At the EG meeting, we discussed creating a JSF 2.1 branch. To our surpirse,
DA> we learned that this branch has already been created:
DA> https://mojarra.dev.java.net/source/browse/mojarra/branches/2_1_BRANCH/
DA> But Jim informed us that while it exists, it hasn't been updated in a while.
DA> Given how much collaborative development happens on JSF, I wonder whether it
DA> would be reasonable to request that we use a distributed system for
DA> prototyping (not necessarily that Mojarra has to move). Project Kenai is the
DA> supported distributed revision "forge" inside of Sun, and that would be
DA> accetable, though I will mention that Seam is looking to move to Git at
DA> Github.com, so we are partial to Git.
DA> So, before you work to update the branch, Jim, is there any chance we could
DA> do forks at Kenai? http://kenai.com/ Otherwise, we would like to request
DA> that the branch be updated.
My plan was to merge the branch back into HEAD and do the work there.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
4:29 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Ed Burns <Ed.Burns(a)sun.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:07:23 -0500, Dan Allen
<dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
said:
DA> At the EG meeting, we discussed creating a JSF 2.1 branch. To our
surpirse,
DA> we learned that this branch has already been created:
DA>
https://mojarra.dev.java.net/source/browse/mojarra/branches/2_1_BRANCH/
DA> But Jim informed us that while it exists, it hasn't been updated in a
while.
DA> Given how much collaborative development happens on JSF, I wonder
whether it
DA> would be reasonable to request that we use a distributed system for
DA> prototyping (not necessarily that Mojarra has to move). Project Kenai
is the
DA> supported distributed revision "forge" inside of Sun, and that would be
DA> accetable, though I will mention that Seam is looking to move to Git at
DA> Github.com, so we are partial to Git.
DA> So, before you work to update the branch, Jim, is there any chance we
could
DA> do forks at Kenai? http://kenai.com/ Otherwise, we would like to
request
DA> that the branch be updated.
My plan was to merge the branch back into HEAD and do the work there.
Oh. But isn't it better to prototype large changes in branches? (Like file
upload) That way we can commit, share, stomp on it, etc without breaking the
HEAD.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
5 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
On 12/11/09 2:26 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
My plan was to merge the branch back into HEAD and do the work there.
I don't think 2.0 is ready to be the side branch yet. There's still a
lot of work to do there.
Similarly, as Dan notes, some of the changes, like h:inputFile, may
possibly be disruptive.
I'll let Ryan chime in - as lead, I'd prefer it be his call.
This is also pending a decision about moving the VCS to some more modern
system like mercurial or git - both of which are supported on Kenai.
But my understanding is that we'd like to hear Oracle's plans before we
commit one way or the other, as well as some indication from GF on which
direction they're going as well (last I heard, it was mercurial on
Kenai). We may want to avoid any big juggling till we have that sorted,
and that's liable to be 2-3 months away.
Jim
5:05 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll(a)sun.com> wrote:
On 12/11/09 2:26 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
>
> My plan was to merge the branch back into HEAD and do the work there.
>
I don't think 2.0 is ready to be the side branch yet. There's still a lot
of work to do there.
Similarly, as Dan notes, some of the changes, like h:inputFile, may
possibly be disruptive.
I'll let Ryan chime in - as lead, I'd prefer it be his call.
This is also pending a decision about moving the VCS to some more modern
system like mercurial or git - both of which are supported on Kenai. But my
understanding is that we'd like to hear Oracle's plans before we commit one
way or the other, as well as some indication from GF on which direction
they're going as well (last I heard, it was mercurial on Kenai). We may
want to avoid any big juggling till we have that sorted, and that's liable
to be 2-3 months away.
All of that sounds good.
I just wonder if we could create a prototype branch on Kenai in the short
run that wouldn't affect any users of Mojarra and would let us play while we
wait. We could kill it as soon as we do any sort of official migration.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
5:06 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Jim Driscoll
<Jim.Driscoll(a)sun.com>wrote:
>
>
> On 12/11/09 2:26 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
>
>>
>> My plan was to merge the branch back into HEAD and do the work there.
>>
>
> I don't think 2.0 is ready to be the side branch yet. There's still a lot
> of work to do there.
>
> Similarly, as Dan notes, some of the changes, like h:inputFile, may
> possibly be disruptive.
>
> I'll let Ryan chime in - as lead, I'd prefer it be his call.
>
> This is also pending a decision about moving the VCS to some more modern
> system like mercurial or git - both of which are supported on Kenai. But my
> understanding is that we'd like to hear Oracle's plans before we commit one
> way or the other, as well as some indication from GF on which direction
> they're going as well (last I heard, it was mercurial on Kenai). We may
> want to avoid any big juggling till we have that sorted, and that's liable
> to be 2-3 months away.
>
All of that sounds good.
I just wonder if we could create a prototype branch on Kenai in the short
run that wouldn't affect any users of Mojarra and would let us play while we
wait. We could kill it as soon as we do any sort of official migration.
It would require creating a prototype project.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
12:24 a.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
I don't want to create a new project on Kenai right now. Just create
an svn branch off the HEAD. Andy already did it for some prototype
work he did during the 2.0 cycle. No biggie, we already have a
precedent. I created many branches when prototyping EZComp. Whe do we
need something new?
Please excuse the terseness of this response. It was sent from a
mobile device.
12:29 a.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:24 AM, <Ed.Burns(a)sun.com> wrote:
I don't want to create a new project on Kenai right now. Just
create an svn
branch off the HEAD. Andy already did it for some prototype work he did
during the 2.0 cycle. No biggie, we already have a precedent. I created many
branches when prototyping EZComp. Whe do we need something new?
Okay. We'll just roll with an SVN branch then. I'll sure will be excited
if/when we do move to a distribution version control system. Once you go
there, you can never go back ;)
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
2:07 a.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] [admin] JSF 2.1 branch
On 12/11/09 10:29 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
Okay. We'll just roll with an SVN branch then. I'll sure will
be excited
if/when we do move to a distribution version control system. Once you go
there, you can never go back ;)
If only that were true. In the early days of Java, we all used a
distributed VCS called TeamWare. Sadly, it only really worked on
Solaris (with a buggy Windows port), and used NFS for it's transport,
which made it unsuitable for internet use. Moving to CVS was a bit of a
step up, but we sure did miss the branching. I agree, it'll be nice to
get it back.
Jim
5300
days inactive
5301
days old
jsr-314-open-mirror@lists.jboss.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dan Allen -
Ed Burns -
Ed.Burns＠Sun.COM
-
Jim Driscoll