lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@o19s.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Date Sat, 19 Feb 2011 02:22:15 GMT
using svn externals makes it harder on people who would use tools like
git-svn for version control on their local box.




On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Troy Howard <thoward37@gmail.com> wrote:

> Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial,
> will be found below
>
> Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it
> clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN.
>
> This is completely appropriate for Mercurial or Git, because they were
> designed for that. SVN however, was not, and branching becomes costly
> because it bloats the repo, causing updates or initial downloads to be
> much larger, and merging is confusing and difficult with SVN.
>
> Also, a big part of this is that many people have the opinion that
> 'trunk' should be stable. I think this philosophy is incorrect.
> Instead, stable revisions should be tagged, and trunk should be viewed
> as unstable, possibly not building or functioning correctly. Commits
> should occur frequently, and be isolated to a very small scope per
> commit.
>
> When an end user wants to get a stable build, then they can look to
> the tags directory to find the version they want, and work from that.
> Branches should be reserved for changes that are made to those tagged
> revisions.
>
> I also think that each project should have it's own repository,
> instead of bundling many into a single repo. This allows for better
> version tracking. SVN external can be used to bring complex composites
> of projects together into a single resulting application. This part of
> SVN is often overlooked as well, and we lump everything into one huge
> repository.
>
> I wish we had Mercurial here at Apache, because I honestly feel it's a
> MUCH better system because it allows these kinds of workflows. SVN
> doesn't really do that well. So, unpleasant as it may be, the strategy
> I described above works best within the SVN system.
>
> When in Rome...
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch?
> >
> > Yes that's the intention. I started to look at what Wyatt did
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-377. I think feel that it
> works well as designed.
> >
> > Question: Wyatt has included the nunit.dll's I know we had a conversation
> before about this. But I think being able to pull down everything, open a
> single solution which has test, contrib, src, as well as the required
> dependancies would be a huge boon to getting people to work on this stuff.
> >
> > Every change I need to make for 2.9.2-2.9.5 requires me to touch the
> tests. it just makes sense from my perspective to have this all in the same
> solution ready to roll.
> >
> > Is this something people are open too having in the source control, or
> something I should keep to my local? Also, I don't recall the legal stuff
> behind including nunit.
> >
> > Obviously a release would just be the src rolled up and packaged.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> From: thoward37@gmail.com
> >> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:38:47 -0800
> >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/
> lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
> >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> CC: sergey@mirvoda.com
> >>
> >> It's a common practice for developers to create a branch to work on a
> >> new feature, then merge that branch back into trunk later when the
> >> changes are complete, then delete the branch.
> >>
> >> The goal is to ensure that incremental commits, performed now against
> >> the branch instead of trunk, don't leave trunk in a incompatible,
> >> unstable or un-buildable state.
> >>
> >> Perhaps that's Prescott's intention with the new vs2010 branch?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Troy
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Sergey Mirvoda wrote:
> >> > +1 for only one trunk upgraded to VS2010
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Lombard, Scott > >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I agree with DIGY.
> >> >>
> >> >> Although why wait until after the official release?
> >> >>
> >> >> Scott
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:38 PM
> >> >> To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/
> lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
> >> >>
> >> >> Do we really need a VS2010 branch?. Since there isn't any release
> since
> >> >> v2.0 and people have to compile the source by yourselves it has been
> good to
> >> >> support older versions of VS. But after having an offical release,
we
> could
> >> >> update the trunk to support VS2010.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now for each change in trunk (for v2.9.3, 2.9.4 & 2.9.5) we have
to
> update
> >> >> another repository also.
> >> >>
> >> >> DIGY
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: pnasser@apache.org [mailto:pnasser@apache.org]
> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 PM
> >> >> To: lucene-net-commits@lucene.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/
> lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
> >> >>
> >> >> Author: pnasser
> >> >> Date: Fri Feb 18 20:10:54 2011
> >> >> New Revision: 1072121
> >> >>
> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1072121&view=rev
> >> >> Log: (empty)
> >> >>
> >> >> Added:
> >> >> incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
> >> >> - copied from r1069573, incubator/lucene.net/trunk/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the
> >> >> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
> >> >> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or
> >> >> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient
> >> >> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or
> >> >> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message,
> >> >> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
> >> >> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting
> >> >> it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > --Regards, Sergey Mirvoda
> >> >
>



-- 
Michael Herndon
Senior Developer (mherndon@o19s.com)
804.767.0083

[connect online]
http://www.opensourceconnections.com
http://www.amptools.net
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-herndon/4/893/23
http://www.facebook.com/amptools.net
http://www.twitter.com/amptools-net

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