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 15:09:35 GMT
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

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.
> >>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message