From: Jason van Zyl <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [JGIT PATCH 1/9] mavenizing step 1: moved over the
initial poms from Jasons branch Signed-off-by: Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxx
>
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jonas Fonseca" <jonas.fonseca@xxxxxxxxx
>, "Robin Rosenberg" <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx>, git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2009, 1:16 AM
On 2009-09-30, at 4:13 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
Hi!
I now squashed all my changes into 2 commits and
omitted the eclipse parts. They are available at
http://github.com/sonatype/JGit/commits/mavenize2
As Shawn pointed out on IRC, the next step would be to
migrate this patch over to the eclipe.org-post branch which
I will do tomorrow evening.
I also have a Tycho build for the EGIT part, and I have
bundle creation working for the JGIT part. I've already
integrated these two builds into our product so it all
works. I can put it somewhere as you're ready to absorb it
if you want it.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Wed, 9/30/09, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [JGIT PATCH 1/9] mavenizing step 1:
moved over the initial poms from Jasons branch
Signed-off-by: Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mark Struberg" <struberg@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jonas Fonseca" <jonas.fonseca@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Robin Rosenberg" <robin.rosenberg.lists@xxxxxxxxxx>,
git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Jason van Zyl" <jvanzyl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 11:16 PM
Mark Struberg <struberg@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Jonas Fonseca <jonas.fonseca@xxxxxxxxx>
actually
removes features (by not keeping the JGit
specific
settings), which
you then try to amend later in the patch
series.
I'm not sure what JGit specific settings you
speak
about?
I think he's talking about the Eclipse settings
files? Or is it
something else?
In terms of making the patch series more
manageable for
you, I think
the best approach is to start with the
patches
not relevant
to the
mavenizing (renaming PathSuffixTestCase).
In fact the fix of the PathSuffixTestCase came
a few
days later
after I found the reason why I miss a few
tests. This
should be
fixed in the current master anyway and has not
so much
todo with
the mavenization itself.
But it should be earlier in the series because its
easier
to apply.
Use rebase -i to swap the order of the patches.
I had the following in mind: every single
commit
should be
compileable and working. So
it's not easily
manageable to move the
directory structure in one patch and apply all
the
changes into
the poms in another commit.
Well, you need to edit the pom to change the
source
directory and do
the move in one commit, and then edit the pom
further in
another,
possibly removing the source directory directories
once it
is the
standard maven layout.
We could for sure squash the later few
commits, but I
didn't
liked to rebase and push since there have been
a few
forks of the
mavenize branch and I hoped I could pull back
a few
commits from
others and later do a rebase -i.
True.
At this point we need to rebase the patches on the
new
history in
the eclipse.org-post branch, which contains a
massive
rename of
org.spearce to org.eclipse. That may make
the tree
reorg patch in
your Maven series harder to bring over to the new
history,
sorry.
Worse, we now have to start following the Eclipse
IP
process[1]
for submissions to JGit...
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/ip-process-in-cartoons.php
--Shawn.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
"unsubscribe
git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html