Re: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

> Why dont we just aim for this sequence of releases in HEAD:
> 
> 0.8.3 - bugfix
> 0.8.4 - CGLIB 2
> 0.9   - DataSource (++?)

First of all, I made a mistake. The bug fix release will be 0.8.2.

The only reason I hesitate about releasing 0.8.4 (er, I mean 0.8.3)
before 0.9.0 is it means we can't release our DataSource code until
cglib2 is released. I don't like that loss of control. Let me talk to 
Chris at cglib and see what he thinks about timing.

> 1) We will have to make our branch from the v0-8-2 tag. This is
> confusing. Normal procedure would have been to create a bugfix branch
> on the v0-8 release.

Er, we could still do that right? But it would then be very wise to
merge in the bug fixes from 0.8.1/2. 

> 2) Branching in general leads to confusion. People tend to forget wich
> branch they work in, forget to merge etc. etc.

Tell me about it. If we can avoid it, then fine.

> We will need a branch if you need to checkin unfinished CGLIB 2 stuff
> before the 0.8.3 release.

That can be avoided. 0.8.3 (er, I mean 0.8.2) will definitely be before
cglib2 is released. Probably.

[snip]
> cvs rtag -b -r v0-8-2 v0-8-2-PATCH proxool
[snip]
> 1) Tag the merge point:
> cvs -q rtag -F -r v0-8-2-PATCH v0-8-2-PATCH-MERGED proxool 
> 
> 2) Merge in from the "v0-8-2-PATCH" branch to HEAD:
> cvs update -d -j v0-8-2-PATCH

Thanks for clarifying that. Merging scares me :)

> We don't need a separate branch for the CGLIB stuff if I hold my
> DataSource checkins right? Alternatively I can keep it in the sandbox.

I think you might run into problems with keeping it in the sandbox.
You'll need to reference it in ProxoolFacade, I would think. I can't
think of a nice way round that.

Cheers,
Bill

P.S. I'm very excited about the DataSource code :)