Re: [VuFind-Tech] [VuFind-General] Getting closer (was "Current VuFind error message")

[Andrew N. <as...@gm...>]

Yeah - I will work at getting all of what I have checked in - it should be
stable soon.  Our goal was to have trunk stable and create a development
branch - which is what I plan to do once I have  all of my major changes
completed.  Here is going to be the svn data structure once I am completed
with my latest round of changes:

Stable Code: /trunk
Dev Code: /branches/dev
Historical Releases: /releases

Andrew



On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Till Kinstler <kin...@gm...> wrote:

> Andrew Nagy wrote:
>
>  And I apologize for trunk being broken for so long.
>>
>
> Yes :-)
>
>   I had every intention to have all of the major changes checked in by now.
>>
>>
>
> Just check in regulary, whatever it is. For me it's not that important,
> whether a checkout is broken or not, or if it implements a complete feature,
> fix or redesign or only parts of. As long as the code I get, is fresh. If
> it's too experimental/broken I may revert to an earlier version. I think
> that's the magic of version control :-).
> That would make it much easier to maintain our branch, share our
> extensions/developments or contribute to bug fixing and mainline
> development. That's how open source development should work, isn't it?
> And maybe it encourages others to contribute. I sometimes have the feeling,
> there are many local VuFind branches, where many good ideas are implemented
> and some bugs fixed (even redundantly), but only few things come back to the
> mainline trunk. That's really a waste of ressources, isn't it? We don't all
> need to find out where to change GET to POST in all our branches
> redundantly, do we?
> And I really don't want to branch off our developments, because there is
> too much happening in the main trunk that is worth catching up with it. For
> me it didn't make sense to implement eg. DisMax myself, because I know it's
> coming some day (and even better implemented than I could have done). On the
> other hand I am really willing to contribute to testing and fixing it, but
> that doesn't make sense if using pretty old code. So just check in, whatever
> it is...
> If there is huge interest in stable SVN checkouts, we should think about
> tagging "stable devolpment versions" or may even implement some kind of
> automated testing and tagging (anyone volunteering? :-).
>
> Regards,
> Till
>