rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.pa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Angular Branch
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:55:01 GMT
Well I definitely wouldn't want to merge before an 0.23 release -
what's to be gained?

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's the real question. Are we going to do any more releases prior to
>> Angular being ready? If not, let's just do it in trunk. I don't think there
>> are really any major features other than Angular that are even being worked
>> on.
>>
>
> I still think we need a 0.23 release.
>
>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Rohit Kalkur <rohit.kalkur@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are still other developers/users of this application that are
>> > dependent on the existing functionality (the JSP version) of the
>> > application correct?
>> >
>> > If we are going to shift the primary focus to getting Angular implemented
>> > then I think it would make sense. Otherwise, I think it makes more sense
>> to
>> > maintain the separate branch.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <
>> > erin.noe.payne@gmail.com
>> > > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If there are not breaking changes on the angular branch now (and I'm
>> > > > not so sure there aren't), then there definitely will be at some
>> > > > point. Chris mentioned tests, there are data model changes, there
are
>> > > > changes in how static content will be delivered, etc. Doing that sort
>> > > > of development while having to worry about breaking the production
>> > > > version seems like setting ourselves up for a bad time.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > IMO, the data model changes need to be done in trunk and not in a
>> branch.
>> > >  Even if we kept angular in its own branch, this means we need to
>> update
>> > > both the JSP & Angular implementations anyway.  There also might be
>> some
>> > > value in maintaining the JSP UI as a deprecated feature for a while
>> until
>> > > everyone is able to migrate away to angular.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If we want to make the angular branch the primary or only focus of
>> > > > development going forward, we could potentially make a stable branch
>> > > > off of trunk, for bug fixes / release, and develop angular in trunk.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > We can (and have) done that for critical fixes when trunk wasn't ready
>> to
>> > > release.
>> > >
>> > > My goal in suggesting this is to make the angular development part of
>> the
>> > > core development effort, if not the whole focus.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > Matt,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The only two considerations from my point of view are:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1) I know there have been several times where tests haven't been
>> > > > > functioning on the Angular branch since it wasn't the highest
>> > priority.
>> > > > > We'd have to ensure we were far enough along to make sure tests
>> > > functions
>> > > > > on trunk.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2) If we decided to go down the data overhaul we were discussing
>> we'd
>> > > > have
>> > > > > to make sure the changes were applied to both the Angular and
>> > existing
>> > > > UI.
>> > > > > Not a show stopper but might be extra work that isn't worthwhile
if
>> > the
>> > > > > existing UI is going away.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matt Franklin <
>> > > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I have been taking a look at the angular branch and think
that the
>> > > > >> prototype work is awesome.  I think it is a huge step forward
in
>> > > > >> implementation flexibility.  As I was looking through it,
I
>> > struggled
>> > > a
>> > > > bit
>> > > > >> with whether or not it needed to be in its own branch.  From
what
>> I
>> > > can
>> > > > see
>> > > > >> in the code, it should be possible to run the old and the
new ways
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> same war with very few changes.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What does everyone think about merging the the branch to
trunk?
>>  IMO
>> > > it
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> OK to have an incomplete feature in the main branch so long
as it
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > >> negatively impact the core functionality.
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message