rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Franklin <m.ben.frank...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Angular Branch
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:12:38 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message