Mailing List Archive

development practices (regarding current live tv situation)
Isaac, why didn't you create a branch to do your disruptive live tv
work? "You should subscribe to mythtv-dev if you want to run the svn
head" isn't a good enough reason. Branching in svn is really, really
easy and would have avoided a lot of problems here.


-- Jeremy
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 07:31 pm, Jeremy Muhlich wrote:
> Isaac, why didn't you create a branch to do your disruptive live tv
> work? "You should subscribe to mythtv-dev if you want to run the svn
> head" isn't a good enough reason. Branching in svn is really, really
> easy and would have avoided a lot of problems here.

Because I didn't feel like it, and it won't be broken for very long?

Isaac
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
I do subscribe to mythtv-dev and mythtv-cvs -- and I am happy enough with
Issac's "didn't feel like it" answer -- not that it matters. I am more
excited to see the LiveTV work done than worry about temporary sacrifice.
And I would argue that it is easier for you to "svn update -r 7738" (and
using a LiveTV working build) than it is for everyone else to fork another
branch. If you don't like a rapidly developing source tree, use stable.

But this is not why I am replying.

Issac, when you say not very long? Any thoughts as to how long? A couple of
days? week? more? ;)

W

On 11/9/05, Isaac Richards <ijr@case.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 07:31 pm, Jeremy Muhlich wrote:
> > Isaac, why didn't you create a branch to do your disruptive live tv
> > work? "You should subscribe to mythtv-dev if you want to run the svn
> > head" isn't a good enough reason. Branching in svn is really, really
> > easy and would have avoided a lot of problems here.
>
> Because I didn't feel like it, and it won't be broken for very long?
>
> Isaac
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
>
>
>
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 07:54 pm, Wylie Swanson wrote:
> I do subscribe to mythtv-dev and mythtv-cvs -- and I am happy enough with
> Issac's "didn't feel like it" answer -- not that it matters. I am more
> excited to see the LiveTV work done than worry about temporary sacrifice.
> And I would argue that it is easier for you to "svn update -r 7738" (and
> using a LiveTV working build) than it is for everyone else to fork another
> branch. If you don't like a rapidly developing source tree, use stable.

I did send out a query to the other developers before breaking anything, to
make sure nobody working on code in that area (Daniel, mostly) would mind,
too. I didn't think the hassle of dealing with a branch was worth it for a
short period of breakage.

> But this is not why I am replying.
>
> Issac, when you say not very long? Any thoughts as to how long? A couple of
> days? week? more? ;)

About a week more, I'm thinking. Maybe this weekend, if I get enough time.
Most of the hard stuff is done already.

Isaac
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
> And I would argue that it is easier for you to "svn update -r 7738" (and
> using a LiveTV working build) than it is for everyone else to fork another
> branch. If you don't like a rapidly developing source tree, use stable.

People wouldn't have to fork, only Isaac would have had to work in his own
branch for doing that stuff. Once it was done, he could merge it back
into the main trunk and everyone else could continue to work without
jumping through hoops.

> Issac, when you say not very long? Any thoughts as to how long? A couple
> of days? week? more? ;)

I've read ahead to Isaac's response of a week. A breakage for a day might
not have necessitated a branch, but a week of brokenness seems like it
might have been a good thing to compartmentalize.

Pulling a branch is pretty easy:

svn copy svn+ssh://.../trunk svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken

and then the merge would have been:

svn merge svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken svn+ssh://.../trunk

Doesn't seem all that difficult to me.

andy

_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
andrew burke wrote:

>Doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
>
>

Oddly enough keeping up on the developers list when using svn doesn't
seem difficult to the rest of us.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
andrew burke wrote:

>Pulling a branch is pretty easy:
>
>svn copy svn+ssh://.../trunk svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken
>
>and then the merge would have been:
>
>svn merge svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken svn+ssh://.../trunk
>
>
>
truck is mainly for developers working on current code, and if guys
keeps bitching about this minor issue, the devs might not allow pple
like me (non contributors who do not contribute to the project at all)
to access trunk anymore.

Enough warning has been given, he already said LiveTV will be broken a
few days ago, what more do you need? So what if LiveTV is broken, so
what if everything is broken? It's the main development branch for god's
sake!!

If you want something that works, get the stable branch. If you want to
use head, be prepared for minor hiccups.. The code is in active
development, there's *absolutely no reason* to branch things just to
make trunk work for non-developers.

>Doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
>
>
Branching and merging will probably cause more problems..



_______________________________________________
mythtv-dev mailing list
mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
On Nov 9, 2005, at 5:48 PM, andrew burke wrote:

>> And I would argue that it is easier for you to "svn update -r
>> 7738" (and
>> using a LiveTV working build) than it is for everyone else to fork
>> another
>> branch. If you don't like a rapidly developing source tree, use
>> stable.
>
> People wouldn't have to fork, only Isaac would have had to work in
> his own
> branch for doing that stuff. Once it was done, he could merge it back
> into the main trunk and everyone else could continue to work without
> jumping through hoops.
>
>> Issac, when you say not very long? Any thoughts as to how long? A
>> couple
>> of days? week? more? ;)
>
> I've read ahead to Isaac's response of a week. A breakage for a
> day might
> not have necessitated a branch, but a week of brokenness seems like it
> might have been a good thing to compartmentalize.
>
> Pulling a branch is pretty easy:
>
> svn copy svn+ssh://.../trunk svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken
>
> and then the merge would have been:
>
> svn merge svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken svn+ssh://.../trunk
>
> Doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
>
Regardless, this discussion is pointless, its Isaac's project and if
he doesn't feel like making a branch, there is no reason to argue.

Geoff
Re: development practices (regarding current live tv situation) [ In reply to ]
Oh well, c'est la vie.

W

On 11/9/05, andrew burke <aburke@bitflood.org> wrote:
>
> > And I would argue that it is easier for you to "svn update -r 7738" (and
> > using a LiveTV working build) than it is for everyone else to fork
> another
> > branch. If you don't like a rapidly developing source tree, use stable.
>
> People wouldn't have to fork, only Isaac would have had to work in his own
> branch for doing that stuff. Once it was done, he could merge it back
> into the main trunk and everyone else could continue to work without
> jumping through hoops.
>
> > Issac, when you say not very long? Any thoughts as to how long? A couple
> > of days? week? more? ;)
>
> I've read ahead to Isaac's response of a week. A breakage for a day might
> not have necessitated a branch, but a week of brokenness seems like it
> might have been a good thing to compartmentalize.
>
> Pulling a branch is pretty easy:
>
> svn copy svn+ssh://.../trunk svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken
>
> and then the merge would have been:
>
> svn merge svn+ssh://.../livetvbroken svn+ssh://.../trunk
>
> Doesn't seem all that difficult to me.
>
> andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-dev mailing list
> mythtv-dev@mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-dev
>