rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: Angular Branch
Date Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:04:06 GMT
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.

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