Re: [Webmacro-devel] Bug in repeating invocations of #eval, and future directions of webmacro

[Guy B. K. <gu...@wa...>]

On 27 Nov 2011, at 21:00, Alex Fiennes wrote:

> On 27 November 2011 19:46, Tim Pizey <ti...@pa...> wrote:
> 
> I do not understand why you are using a copy of someone else's copy of
> webmacro? You are a committer, so should be using the trunk.
> 
> primarily because I initially made the github copy because I wanted to experiment with some ideas that might or might not have been sensible to include in the public viewpoint and it was so much easier to handle branches in git.
>  
> > This has been a gentle experiment so far because I haven't found anything
> > that is actually broken yet, but come this bug then I suspect that I might
> > well start using my branch for production stuff rather than just playing
> > around with ideas.
> > Who else other than me is still using webmacro and should I just continue to
> > work on my github branch and move forwards?  Failing that, do people want me
> > to backport changes across to sourceforge?
> 
> > Stuff that I have been initially working on in github is:
> >
> > removing the dependencies on the EDU.oswego.cs.dl.util.concurrent packages
> 
> This is done:
> 
> http://webmacro.sourceforge.net/dependencies.html
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that this had been done.  In fact I wasn't aware that anything had been done to webmacro for some time.  This either means that my mail filters are misconfigured or I am not subscribed to the appropriate mailing lists.  Has there been a release recently?

Sorry, I've not been checking my mail as rigorously as normal, so I've missed most of this thread.  Picking up here (briefly) to dispel some confusion:

The last change made to webmacro in CVS was on 2011-05-16: 

https://github.com/alex-fiennes/webmacro/commit/591206790c75d0f8419a4913657c49dc10b1e57c

The change Tim made to dependencies was on 2010-02-21:

https://github.com/alex-fiennes/webmacro/commit/1810052e862974cf4619532390dc0fa8cb5e5768

Both changes are included in the github repo; I don't know what additional changes Alex has made to the dependencies.

In short: the github repo includes _all_ changes from the sourceforge CVS repo.  No changes have been missed.

If you wish to maintain a repo on sourceforge, I'd clone the github one and push it upstream to sourceforge's git hosting, and abandon the CVS repo: you can always take a copy of the old CVS repo from sourceforge beforehand, or I can send it to you as I have one.

What I would advise against is backporting into the CVS tree, as at that point you will start to have to manually maintain two source trees in painfully different SCMs.

Lastly, I apologise for appearing to have rail-roaded the move to git: in my defense, I'd like to point out that the git repo has enabled the experimental work that lead Alex to finding a bug, and that the git repo we now have (which tracks the 2.2 re-org correctly) records the history of this project with greater fidelity than CVS did.

Best regards, and good luck,

Guy.