svn ready if we want it -- feedback

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

svn ready if we want it -- feedback

dblevins
Administrator
Hey all,

I found an svn2cvs doc at apache and gave it a shot on our cvs before  
we go to the incubator.

   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/svn openejb-svn
   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org/trunk


This is the latest code as of this morning after Gianny's checkin.

Should we use it?

I'd also like to get us into the incubator soon and it will be much  
easier with cvs -> svn conversion actually done.  An svn to svn  
migration is easy and you can even just run a command to point a  
checked out svn to it's new location.

-David


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn ready if we want it -- feedback

Dain Sundstrom
I have a big patch I'm integrating right now (work is done, just  
integrating).  Can you wait another day?

-dain

On Jan 31, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> I found an svn2cvs doc at apache and gave it a shot on our cvs  
> before we go to the incubator.
>
>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/svn openejb-svn
>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org/trunk
>
>
> This is the latest code as of this morning after Gianny's checkin.
>
> Should we use it?
>
> I'd also like to get us into the incubator soon and it will be much  
> easier with cvs -> svn conversion actually done.  An svn to svn  
> migration is easy and you can even just run a command to point a  
> checked out svn to it's new location.
>
> -David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn ready if we want it -- feedback

dblevins
Administrator
Sure.

Let's plan on a cvs freeze from 9am to 11am tomorrow.  I should be  
able to get an new svn repo up by then.


-David

On Jan 31, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I have a big patch I'm integrating right now (work is done, just  
> integrating).  Can you wait another day?
>
> -dain
>
> On Jan 31, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I found an svn2cvs doc at apache and gave it a shot on our cvs  
>> before we go to the incubator.
>>
>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/svn openejb-svn
>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org/trunk
>>
>>
>> This is the latest code as of this morning after Gianny's checkin.
>>
>> Should we use it?
>>
>> I'd also like to get us into the incubator soon and it will be  
>> much easier with cvs -> svn conversion actually done.  An svn to  
>> svn migration is easy and you can even just run a command to point  
>> a checked out svn to it's new location.
>>
>> -David
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

svn conversion (was: svn ready if we want it -- feedback)

dblevins
Administrator
Heads up, starting the final conversion now.  Keep the cvs cool and  
get ready to check out the new svn.

-David

On Jan 31, 2006, at 4:00 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Sure.
>
> Let's plan on a cvs freeze from 9am to 11am tomorrow.  I should be  
> able to get an new svn repo up by then.
>
>
> -David
>
> On Jan 31, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> I have a big patch I'm integrating right now (work is done, just  
>> integrating).  Can you wait another day?
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Jan 31, 2006, at 2:01 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I found an svn2cvs doc at apache and gave it a shot on our cvs  
>>> before we go to the incubator.
>>>
>>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/svn openejb-svn
>>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org/trunk
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the latest code as of this morning after Gianny's checkin.
>>>
>>> Should we use it?
>>>
>>> I'd also like to get us into the incubator soon and it will be  
>>> much easier with cvs -> svn conversion actually done.  An svn to  
>>> svn migration is easy and you can even just run a command to  
>>> point a checked out svn to it's new location.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

dblevins
Administrator
Alright, svn conversion is done.

   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/openejb2
   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org

Let me know if you have any issues.

Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the haus?

-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

dblevins
Administrator
So talking with Brett on irc -- he did our commit emails (thanks) --  
and he recommended this scm structure:

openejb0
openejb0/branches
openejb0/tags
openejb0/trunk
openejb1
openejb1/branches
openejb1/tags
openejb1/trunk
openejb2
openejb2/branches
openejb2/tags
openejb2/trunk
openejb3
openejb3/branches
openejb3/tags
openejb3/trunk

What do you guys think?

-David

On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>
>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
> openejb2
>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>
> Let me know if you have any issues.
>
> Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the  
> haus?
>
> -David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

Matt Hogstrom
Its fine with me.  Is there really a 0?

David Blevins wrote:

> So talking with Brett on irc -- he did our commit emails (thanks) --  
> and he recommended this scm structure:
>
> openejb0
> openejb0/branches
> openejb0/tags
> openejb0/trunk
> openejb1
> openejb1/branches
> openejb1/tags
> openejb1/trunk
> openejb2
> openejb2/branches
> openejb2/tags
> openejb2/trunk
> openejb3
> openejb3/branches
> openejb3/tags
> openejb3/trunk
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -David
>
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>
>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/ openejb2
>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>
>> Let me know if you have any issues.
>>
>> Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the  haus?
>>
>> -David
>>
>
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

Dain Sundstrom
In reply to this post by dblevins
+1

-dain

On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> So talking with Brett on irc -- he did our commit emails (thanks)  
> -- and he recommended this scm structure:
>
> openejb0
> openejb0/branches
> openejb0/tags
> openejb0/trunk
> openejb1
> openejb1/branches
> openejb1/tags
> openejb1/trunk
> openejb2
> openejb2/branches
> openejb2/tags
> openejb2/trunk
> openejb3
> openejb3/branches
> openejb3/tags
> openejb3/trunk
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -David
>
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>
>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
>> openejb2
>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>
>> Let me know if you have any issues.
>>
>> Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the  
>> haus?
>>
>> -David
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

kevan
In reply to this post by dblevins

On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>
>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
> openejb2
>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org

David,
This broke OpenEJB's Gbuild. It also broke Geronimo's build process.  
Important to note that G 1.0 buildnotes are no longer valid. I think  
we should be moving to a published build model for OpenEJB, to avoid  
this problem in the future. Agreed?

--kevan

> Let me know if you have any issues.
>
> Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the  
> haus?
>
> -David
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

Alan Cabrera
In reply to this post by dblevins
The SVN triplet usually gets used per product.  openejb[0-3] are really
versions of the same product line.  Using standard SVN organization:

openejb/branches/0
openejb/branches/1
openejb/branches/2_0
openejb/branches/3 - new development branch that will eventuall replace
trunk

openejb/tags/v0_0
openejb/tags/v0_8_0
openejb/tags/v0_8_1
openejb/tags/v0_8_2
openejb/tags/v0_9_0
openejb/tags/v0_9_1
openejb/tags/v0_9_2
openejb/tags/v2_0_0

openejb/trunk -- v2.x

On 2/1/2006 8:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> So talking with Brett on irc -- he did our commit emails (thanks) --  
> and he recommended this scm structure:
>
> openejb0
> openejb0/branches
> openejb0/tags
> openejb0/trunk
> openejb1
> openejb1/branches
> openejb1/tags
> openejb1/trunk
> openejb2
> openejb2/branches
> openejb2/tags
> openejb2/trunk
> openejb3
> openejb3/branches
> openejb3/tags
> openejb3/trunk
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> -David
>
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>
>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/ openejb2
>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>
>> Let me know if you have any issues.
>>
>> Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the  
>> haus?
>>
>> -David
>>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

dblevins
Administrator
In reply to this post by kevan

On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>
>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
>> openejb2
>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>
> David,
> This broke OpenEJB's Gbuild. It also broke Geronimo's build process.

Fixed now.

> Important to note that G 1.0 buildnotes are no longer valid. I  
> think we should be moving to a published build model for OpenEJB,  
> to avoid this problem in the future. Agreed?

You are preaching to the choir.   David J. and Dain, what are your  
current thoughts on this?

-David

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

Dain Sundstrom
On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>>
>>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
>>> openejb2
>>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>
>> David,
>> This broke OpenEJB's Gbuild. It also broke Geronimo's build process.
>
> Fixed now.
>
>> Important to note that G 1.0 buildnotes are no longer valid. I  
>> think we should be moving to a published build model for OpenEJB,  
>> to avoid this problem in the future. Agreed?
>
> You are preaching to the choir.   David J. and Dain, what are your  
> current thoughts on this?

I don't think it is possible yet.  There interface between openejb  
and geronimo is HUGE.  When ever you want to change something in  
openejb you normally need to change stuff in geronimo, so you need to  
build everything together.  This is super easy with maven2 but until  
we are on maven2 I say we stick with what we've got.

-dain
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

kevan

On Feb 2, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>>>
>>>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
>>>> openejb2
>>>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>>
>>> David,
>>> This broke OpenEJB's Gbuild. It also broke Geronimo's build process.
>>
>> Fixed now.
>>
>>> Important to note that G 1.0 buildnotes are no longer valid. I  
>>> think we should be moving to a published build model for OpenEJB,  
>>> to avoid this problem in the future. Agreed?
>>
>> You are preaching to the choir.   David J. and Dain, what are your  
>> current thoughts on this?
>
> I don't think it is possible yet.  There interface between openejb  
> and geronimo is HUGE.  When ever you want to change something in  
> openejb you normally need to change stuff in geronimo, so you need  
> to build everything together.  This is super easy with maven2 but  
> until we are on maven2 I say we stick with what we've got.

Agreed that this is an issue for the combined OpenEJB/Geronimo  
developer.

Not quite so much for the Geronimo-only developer. However, he/she  
would suffer a build break when he/she picks up a Geronimo update and  
is either performing an offline build or a new OpenEJB hasn't been  
published.

And little, if at all for a Geronimo built-from-source user.

For now, I'd recommend removing openejb from the m:co goal in the  
branches/1.0 stream and updating build related documentation. Thoughts?

--kevan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

Jacek Laskowski-3
In reply to this post by dblevins
2006/2/2, David Blevins <[hidden email]>:

> So talking with Brett on irc -- he did our commit emails (thanks) --
> and he recommended this scm structure:
>
> openejb0
> openejb0/branches
> openejb0/tags
> openejb0/trunk
> openejb1
> openejb1/branches
> openejb1/tags
> openejb1/trunk
> openejb2
> openejb2/branches
> openejb2/tags
> openejb2/trunk
> openejb3
> openejb3/branches
> openejb3/tags
> openejb3/trunk
>
> What do you guys think?

Hi Dave,

That's fine with me (I can't give it a shot as I'm currently behind a
*dumb* proxy server). I don't understand why we need openejb0, though?
Does it mean that one could start playing with OpenEJB 3? Could we
discuss it? I've noticed the experimental branch had been merged in
with the openejb 3 trunk. Where should one be looking at, what areas
to start with, etc. Some guidelines for people who don't know what to
do with their spare time ;)

BTW, I couldn't find any information about the sources at
http://openejb.org. Where is that? I'd swear I'd seen it.

+1 in favor of the conversition and structure (apart from openejb0)..

> -David

--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.org.pl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: svn conversion - done

kevan
In reply to this post by kevan
FYI, I updated maven.xml in geronimo/branches/1.0 to use svn -- this  
got the Gbuild for 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT to run...

Alternative, was to remove the 'maven m:co' from the 1.0.1 build  
steps. However, I don't know how to do that... We'd also need an  
OpenEJB 2.0.1 gbuild to make that work... I think that's the  
appropriate way forward, however...

--kevan

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kevan Miller <[hidden email]>
> Date: February 3, 2006 5:03:32 AM EST
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [openejb-dev] svn conversion - done
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:34 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>>>>
>>>>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/
>>>>> openejb2
>>>>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>>>
>>>> David,
>>>> This broke OpenEJB's Gbuild. It also broke Geronimo's build  
>>>> process.
>>>
>>> Fixed now.
>>>
>>>> Important to note that G 1.0 buildnotes are no longer valid. I  
>>>> think we should be moving to a published build model for  
>>>> OpenEJB, to avoid this problem in the future. Agreed?
>>>
>>> You are preaching to the choir.   David J. and Dain, what are  
>>> your current thoughts on this?
>>
>> I don't think it is possible yet.  There interface between openejb  
>> and geronimo is HUGE.  When ever you want to change something in  
>> openejb you normally need to change stuff in geronimo, so you need  
>> to build everything together.  This is super easy with maven2 but  
>> until we are on maven2 I say we stick with what we've got.
>
> Agreed that this is an issue for the combined OpenEJB/Geronimo  
> developer.
>
> Not quite so much for the Geronimo-only developer. However, he/she  
> would suffer a build break when he/she picks up a Geronimo update  
> and is either performing an offline build or a new OpenEJB hasn't  
> been published.
>
> And little, if at all for a Geronimo built-from-source user.
>
> For now, I'd recommend removing openejb from the m:co goal in the  
> branches/1.0 stream and updating build related documentation.  
> Thoughts?
>
> --kevan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: svn conversion - done

Brett Porter-3
In reply to this post by Alan Cabrera
Are they really the same product?

I thought each one was a completely redeveloped version, with no SCM
relation to the other.

- Brett

Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> The SVN triplet usually gets used per product.  openejb[0-3] are really
> versions of the same product line.  Using standard SVN organization:
>
> openejb/branches/0
> openejb/branches/1
> openejb/branches/2_0
> openejb/branches/3 - new development branch that will eventuall replace
> trunk
>
> openejb/tags/v0_0
> openejb/tags/v0_8_0
> openejb/tags/v0_8_1
> openejb/tags/v0_8_2
> openejb/tags/v0_9_0
> openejb/tags/v0_9_1
> openejb/tags/v0_9_2
> openejb/tags/v2_0_0
>
> openejb/trunk -- v2.x
>
> On 2/1/2006 8:56 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> So talking with Brett on irc -- he did our commit emails (thanks) --
>> and he recommended this scm structure:
>>
>> openejb0
>> openejb0/branches
>> openejb0/tags
>> openejb0/trunk
>> openejb1
>> openejb1/branches
>> openejb1/tags
>> openejb1/trunk
>> openejb2
>> openejb2/branches
>> openejb2/tags
>> openejb2/trunk
>> openejb3
>> openejb3/branches
>> openejb3/tags
>> openejb3/trunk
>>
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:28 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Alright, svn conversion is done.
>>>
>>>   svn co svn+ssh://openejb.org/home/projects/openejb/scm/trunk/ openejb2
>>>   http://svn.openejb.codehaus.org
>>>
>>> Let me know if you have any issues.
>>>
>>> Commit emails are not working just yet.  Is there an expert in the
>>> haus?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>
>