OFBiz › OFBiz - User

Branch Release 4.0

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

12 messages Options

Vikrant.Rathore

Branch Release 4.0

Hi David,

Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a new branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue to use trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository structure is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps for CRM and financials.

I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to keep track of merge and branching.

Thanks
with best regards,
Vikrant

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/2007 5:43 PM

David E Jones

Re: Branch Release 4.0

The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the
initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found
fully ready.

For information on whether or not you should use it, please look at
this resource:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started

-David

On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a new
> branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
> community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue to
> use trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository
> structure is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from
> opentaps for CRM and financials.
>
> I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
> keep track of merge and branching.
>
> Thanks
> with best regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>

smime.p7s (3K) Download Attachment

Vikrant.Rathore

RE: Branch Release 4.0

In reply to this post by Vikrant.Rathore

Hi David,

To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently

tags
branches
trunk
trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
trunk/hot-deploy/financials
trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
upstream/ofbiz
upstream/crmsfa
upstream/financials
upstream/ warehouse
upstream/opentaps-common

Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica of the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments and commits.

Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart merge from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our development and test environment to do ant run-install.

This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local changes.

Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large development and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and then start working on it.

Thanks
with best regards,
Vikrant

-----Original Message-----
From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0

The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found fully ready.

For information on whether or not you should use it, please look at this resource:

http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started

-David

On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a new
> branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
> community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue to use
> trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository structure
> is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps for
> CRM and financials.
>
> I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to keep
> track of merge and branching.
>
> Thanks
> with best regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/2007 5:43 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/2007 5:43 PM

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Branch Release 4.0

Administrator

Vikrant,

Out of subject and just by curiosity.
Which distributed version control are you using on top of subversion ?

Thanks

Jacques

De : <[hidden email]>

> Hi David,
>
> To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently
>
> tags
> branches
> trunk
> trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
> trunk/hot-deploy/financials
> trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
> trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
> upstream/ofbiz
> upstream/crmsfa
> upstream/financials
> upstream/ warehouse
> upstream/opentaps-common
>
> Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the

respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This is
an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica of the
ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments and
commits.
>
> Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart merge
from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our development
and test environment to do ant run-install.
>
> This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local changes.
>
> Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large development
and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start
developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and then
start working on it.

>
> Thanks
> with best regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>
>
> The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the

initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found fully
ready.
>
> For information on whether or not you should use it, please look at
this resource:

>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
>
> -David
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a new
> > branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
> > community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue to

use
> > trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository structure
> > is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps for
> > CRM and financials.
> >
> > I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
keep

> > track of merge and branching.
> >
> > Thanks
> > with best regards,
> > Vikrant
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> > 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> >
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:

4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>

Vikrant.Rathore

RE: Branch Release 4.0

In reply to this post by Vikrant.Rathore

Hi Jacques,

If you know Opentaps has its own SVN repository, ofbiz has its own repository. On top of that opentaps indeed has different repository for its components. So it was getting very hard for me to keep and merge all the upstream changes to my trunk as you know ofbiz needs to be merged with trunk. The financials and crm resides in hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa. So the merge from opentaps should be on hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa so I used SVK (I already use their product RT, its acquired by Best Practical) on top of subversion and build a automated script which would do the work of merging the upstream with my local changes preserving the comments and updates from the upstream sources.

Indeed I am planning on writing a full document describing this should be ready by monday and would publish it for everyone. I think this problem is not my own specific but with everyone who is working on opensource projects.

Thanks
with best regards,
Vikrant

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0

Vikrant,

Out of subject and just by curiosity.
Which distributed version control are you using on top of subversion ?

Thanks

Jacques

De : <[hidden email]>

respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica of the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments and commits.
>
> Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart merge
from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our development and test environment to do ant run-install.
>
> This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local changes.
>
> Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large development
and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and then start working on it.

initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found fully ready.
>
> For information on whether or not you should use it, please look at
this resource:

4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Branch Release 4.0

Administrator

Hi Vikrant,

A published document about your merging strategy should be very
interesting for sure !
For the moment I use a simple one (dealing with Opentaps components as
well) but yes it begin being more complex with now branches in OFBiz and
current changes in Opentaps.

Thanks for sharing

Jacques

> Hi Jacques,
>
> If you know Opentaps has its own SVN repository, ofbiz has its own
repository. On top of that opentaps indeed has different repository for
its components. So it was getting very hard for me to keep and merge all
the upstream changes to my trunk as you know ofbiz needs to be merged
with trunk. The financials and crm resides in hot-deploy/financials and
hot-deploy/crmsfa. So the merge from opentaps should be on
hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa so I used SVK (I already use
their product RT, its acquired by Best Practical) on top of subversion
and build a automated script which would do the work of merging the
upstream with my local changes preserving the comments and updates from
the upstream sources.
>
> Indeed I am planning on writing a full document describing this should
be ready by monday and would publish it for everyone. I think this
problem is not my own specific but with everyone who is working on
opensource projects.

>
> Thanks
> with best regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>
> Vikrant,
>
> Out of subject and just by curiosity.
> Which distributed version control are you using on top of subversion ?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
> De : <[hidden email]>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently
> >
> > tags
> > branches
> > trunk
> > trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
> > trunk/hot-deploy/financials
> > trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
> > trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
> > upstream/ofbiz
> > upstream/crmsfa
> > upstream/financials
> > upstream/ warehouse
> > upstream/opentaps-common
> >
> > Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the
> respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This

is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica of
the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments and
commits.
> >
> > Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart merge
> from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our development
and test environment to do ant run-install.
> >
> > This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local
changes.
> >
> > Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large
development
> and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start
developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and then
start working on it.

> >
> > Thanks
> > with best regards,
> > Vikrant
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
> >
> >
> > The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the
> initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found

fully ready.

> >
> > For information on whether or not you should use it, please look at
> this resource:
> >
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a new
> > > branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
> > > community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue to
> use
> > > trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository

structure
> > > is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps
for

> > > CRM and financials.
> > >
> > > I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
> keep
> > > track of merge and branching.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > with best regards,
> > > Vikrant
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> > > 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> > >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> >
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:

4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Branch Release 4.0

Administrator

Vikrant,

Are you aware of those documents ?
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/8gI
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/l

Anyway, a good page to put you document should be
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/kg

Thanks

Jacques

> Hi Vikrant,
>
> A published document about your merging strategy should be very
> interesting for sure !
> For the moment I use a simple one (dealing with Opentaps components as
> well) but yes it begin being more complex with now branches in OFBiz
and

> current changes in Opentaps.
>
> Thanks for sharing
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> > If you know Opentaps has its own SVN repository, ofbiz has its own
> repository. On top of that opentaps indeed has different repository

for
> its components. So it was getting very hard for me to keep and merge
all
> the upstream changes to my trunk as you know ofbiz needs to be merged
> with trunk. The financials and crm resides in hot-deploy/financials
and
> hot-deploy/crmsfa. So the merge from opentaps should be on
> hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa so I used SVK (I already
use
> their product RT, its acquired by Best Practical) on top of subversion
> and build a automated script which would do the work of merging the
> upstream with my local changes preserving the comments and updates
from
> the upstream sources.
> >
> > Indeed I am planning on writing a full document describing this
should

> be ready by monday and would publish it for everyone. I think this
> problem is not my own specific but with everyone who is working on
> opensource projects.
> >
> > Thanks
> > with best regards,
> > Vikrant
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
> >
> > Vikrant,
> >
> > Out of subject and just by curiosity.
> > Which distributed version control are you using on top of subversion

> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> > De : <[hidden email]>
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently
> > >
> > > tags
> > > branches
> > > trunk
> > > trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
> > > trunk/hot-deploy/financials
> > > trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
> > > trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
> > > upstream/ofbiz
> > > upstream/crmsfa
> > > upstream/financials
> > > upstream/ warehouse
> > > upstream/opentaps-common
> > >
> > > Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the
> > respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This
> is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica of
> the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments and
> commits.
> > >
> > > Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart

merge
> > from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our
development

> and test environment to do ant run-install.
> > >
> > > This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local
> changes.
> > >
> > > Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large
> development
> > and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start
> developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and then
> start working on it.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > with best regards,
> > > Vikrant
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
> > >
> > >
> > > The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the
> > initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found
> fully ready.
> > >
> > > For information on whether or not you should use it, please look

at
> > this resource:
> > >
> > >
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
> > >
> > > -David
> > >
> > >
> > > On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>

> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi David,
> > > >
> > > > Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a
new
> > > > branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
> > > > community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue
to

> > use
> > > > trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository
> structure
> > > > is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps
> for
> > > > CRM and financials.
> > > >
> > > > I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
> > keep
> > > > track of merge and branching.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > with best regards,
> > > > Vikrant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> > > > 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> > 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> > 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> > >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
> >

Vikrant.Rathore

RE: Branch Release 4.0

In reply to this post by Vikrant.Rathore

Hi Jacques,

I am aware of the 2 documents. But this both doesn't actually fulfill my requirement of having all the comments and incremental commits from the upstream sources. In my local repository the changesets and revision of ofbiz are exact replica of the svn repository hosted on apache. If I do a clean export and then import it in my local repository, i found the process to be cumbersome to update again from the new changes in the ofbiz repository, moreover I lose the changesets and revisions on the ofbiz repository itself, since a clean export cannot do it. The only way to have the fill exact copy using svn is using dump and restore, which requires a shell access to the subversion server.

This is the reason I used SVK which is exactly like dumping a repository on apache subversion server and restoring it on my server.

regards,
Vikrant

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:28 PM
To: [hidden email]; Jacques Le Roux
Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0

Vikrant,

Are you aware of those documents ?
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/8gI
http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/l

Anyway, a good page to put you document should be http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/kg

Thanks

Jacques

> Hi Vikrant,
>
> A published document about your merging strategy should be very
> interesting for sure !
> For the moment I use a simple one (dealing with Opentaps components as
> well) but yes it begin being more complex with now branches in OFBiz
and

merge
> > from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our
development

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM

jonwimp

Re: Branch Release 4.0

Vikrant,

Why would you need a blow-by-blow view of the OFBiz SVN?

Personally, I find it more convenient to take out chunks of updates from OFBiz SVN (like Jacques'
referenced documents suggest).

The merge is the tricky part. Sometimes, the merge could have conflicts, but getting obvious
conflicts (reported by SVN merge or patch) is the lesser evil; at least you know which files to
review. Other times, the merge may contain no textual conflicts, but have logical (runtime)
conflicts instead.

I find it useful to create a large patch file first, rather than updating my customized branch
directly. This large patch file (say between OFBiz trunk r1000 and r2000) will be pre-processed
before I actually perform the merge. Pre-processing includes listing the files I have changed
since bringing in r1000, matching this list with the patch file, and quickly narrowing down to the
list of files I may need to review for conflicts.

But you may ask "isn't such review non-automated and tedious"? First, the review only involves
those areas that both I and OFBiz community have separately (without collaboration) changed.
Second, the review gives me a great view of what the community is up to. A lot of work, perhaps,
but only for those areas of overlap I just mentioned. In any case, I would've needed to put in the
effort to collaborate with the community anyway, and this review is merely a form of collaboration
in a "do my own homework" style.

Still, despite the necessity for the above-mentioned review, I don't often find areas of overlap.
There's a way to do insulated customizations, such that you reduce the areas of overlap.

I find the OFBiz SVN very heavy (35MB of 3rd-party code binaries). And that's why I prefer dealing
with patches (deltas), rather than maintaining a whole 70+(?) MB of SVN that is an exact replica
of OFBiz SVN.

Jonathon

[hidden email] wrote:

> Hi Jacques,
>
> I am aware of the 2 documents. But this both doesn't actually fulfill my requirement of having all the comments and incremental commits from the upstream sources. In my local repository the changesets and revision of ofbiz are exact replica of the svn repository hosted on apache. If I do a clean export and then import it in my local repository, i found the process to be cumbersome to update again from the new changes in the ofbiz repository, moreover I lose the changesets and revisions on the ofbiz repository itself, since a clean export cannot do it. The only way to have the fill exact copy using svn is using dump and restore, which requires a shell access to the subversion server.
>
> This is the reason I used SVK which is exactly like dumping a repository on apache subversion server and restoring it on my server.
>
> regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:28 PM
> To: [hidden email]; Jacques Le Roux
> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>
> Vikrant,
>
> Are you aware of those documents ?
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/8gI
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/l
>
> Anyway, a good page to put you document should be http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/kg
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Hi Vikrant,
>>
>> A published document about your merging strategy should be very
>> interesting for sure !
>> For the moment I use a simple one (dealing with Opentaps components as
>> well) but yes it begin being more complex with now branches in OFBiz
> and
>> current changes in Opentaps.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> If you know Opentaps has its own SVN repository, ofbiz has its own
>> repository. On top of that opentaps indeed has different repository
> for
>> its components. So it was getting very hard for me to keep and merge
> all
>> the upstream changes to my trunk as you know ofbiz needs to be merged
>> with trunk. The financials and crm resides in hot-deploy/financials
> and
>> hot-deploy/crmsfa. So the merge from opentaps should be on
>> hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa so I used SVK (I already
> use
>> their product RT, its acquired by Best Practical) on top of subversion
>> and build a automated script which would do the work of merging the
>> upstream with my local changes preserving the comments and updates
> from
>> the upstream sources.
>>> Indeed I am planning on writing a full document describing this
> should
>> be ready by monday and would publish it for everyone. I think this
>> problem is not my own specific but with everyone who is working on
>> opensource projects.
>>> Thanks
>>> with best regards,
>>> Vikrant
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>>>
>>> Vikrant,
>>>
>>> Out of subject and just by curiosity.
>>> Which distributed version control are you using on top of subversion
> ?
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> De : <[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently
>>>>
>>>> tags
>>>> branches
>>>> trunk
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/financials
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
>>>> upstream/ofbiz
>>>> upstream/crmsfa
>>>> upstream/financials
>>>> upstream/ warehouse
>>>> upstream/opentaps-common
>>>>
>>>> Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the
>>> respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This
>> is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica of
>> the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments and
>> commits.
>>>> Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart
> merge
>>> from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our
> development
>> and test environment to do ant run-install.
>>>> This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local
>> changes.
>>>> Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large
>> development
>>> and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start
>> developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and then
>> start working on it.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> with best regards,
>>>> Vikrant
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the
>>> initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found
>> fully ready.
>>>> For information on whether or not you should use it, please look
> at
>>> this resource:
>>>>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>
>
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a
> new
>>>>> branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
>>>>> community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue
> to
>>> use
>>>>> trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository
>> structure
>>>>> is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps
>> for
>>>>> CRM and financials.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
>>> keep
>>>>> track of merge and branching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>> Vikrant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
>>>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
>> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>>>
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
>> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
>

Vikrant.Rathore

RE: Branch Release 4.0

In reply to this post by Vikrant.Rathore

Hi Jonathon,

Thats exactly the thing I just do a sync with ofbiz svn once and then its just an incremental sync never a full sync and thats the beauty of setting up mirror with SVK. Moreover my merging and branching both are tracked along with revision and commits.

regards,
Vikrant

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:19 PM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0

Vikrant,

Why would you need a blow-by-blow view of the OFBiz SVN?

Personally, I find it more convenient to take out chunks of updates from OFBiz SVN (like Jacques'
referenced documents suggest).

The merge is the tricky part. Sometimes, the merge could have conflicts, but getting obvious conflicts (reported by SVN merge or patch) is the lesser evil; at least you know which files to review. Other times, the merge may contain no textual conflicts, but have logical (runtime) conflicts instead.

I find it useful to create a large patch file first, rather than updating my customized branch directly. This large patch file (say between OFBiz trunk r1000 and r2000) will be pre-processed before I actually perform the merge. Pre-processing includes listing the files I have changed since bringing in r1000, matching this list with the patch file, and quickly narrowing down to the list of files I may need to review for conflicts.

But you may ask "isn't such review non-automated and tedious"? First, the review only involves those areas that both I and OFBiz community have separately (without collaboration) changed.
Second, the review gives me a great view of what the community is up to. A lot of work, perhaps, but only for those areas of overlap I just mentioned. In any case, I would've needed to put in the effort to collaborate with the community anyway, and this review is merely a form of collaboration in a "do my own homework" style.

Still, despite the necessity for the above-mentioned review, I don't often find areas of overlap.
There's a way to do insulated customizations, such that you reduce the areas of overlap.

I find the OFBiz SVN very heavy (35MB of 3rd-party code binaries). And that's why I prefer dealing with patches (deltas), rather than maintaining a whole 70+(?) MB of SVN that is an exact replica of OFBiz SVN.

Jonathon

[hidden email] wrote:

> Hi Jacques,
>
> I am aware of the 2 documents. But this both doesn't actually fulfill my requirement of having all the comments and incremental commits from the upstream sources. In my local repository the changesets and revision of ofbiz are exact replica of the svn repository hosted on apache. If I do a clean export and then import it in my local repository, i found the process to be cumbersome to update again from the new changes in the ofbiz repository, moreover I lose the changesets and revisions on the ofbiz repository itself, since a clean export cannot do it. The only way to have the fill exact copy using svn is using dump and restore, which requires a shell access to the subversion server.
>
> This is the reason I used SVK which is exactly like dumping a repository on apache subversion server and restoring it on my server.
>
> regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:28 PM
> To: [hidden email]; Jacques Le Roux
> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>
> Vikrant,
>
> Are you aware of those documents ?
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/8gI
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/l
>
> Anyway, a good page to put you document should be
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/kg
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
>
>
>> Hi Vikrant,
>>
>> A published document about your merging strategy should be very
>> interesting for sure !
>> For the moment I use a simple one (dealing with Opentaps components
>> as
>> well) but yes it begin being more complex with now branches in OFBiz
> and
>> current changes in Opentaps.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Jacques,
>>>
>>> If you know Opentaps has its own SVN repository, ofbiz has its own
>> repository. On top of that opentaps indeed has different repository
> for
>> its components. So it was getting very hard for me to keep and merge
> all
>> the upstream changes to my trunk as you know ofbiz needs to be merged
>> with trunk. The financials and crm resides in hot-deploy/financials
> and
>> hot-deploy/crmsfa. So the merge from opentaps should be on
>> hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa so I used SVK (I already
> use
>> their product RT, its acquired by Best Practical) on top of
>> subversion and build a automated script which would do the work of
>> merging the upstream with my local changes preserving the comments
>> and updates
> from
>> the upstream sources.
>>> Indeed I am planning on writing a full document describing this
> should
>> be ready by monday and would publish it for everyone. I think this
>> problem is not my own specific but with everyone who is working on
>> opensource projects.
>>> Thanks
>>> with best regards,
>>> Vikrant
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>>>
>>> Vikrant,
>>>
>>> Out of subject and just by curiosity.
>>> Which distributed version control are you using on top of subversion
> ?
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> De : <[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently
>>>>
>>>> tags
>>>> branches
>>>> trunk
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/financials
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
>>>> trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
>>>> upstream/ofbiz
>>>> upstream/crmsfa
>>>> upstream/financials
>>>> upstream/ warehouse
>>>> upstream/opentaps-common
>>>>
>>>> Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the
>>> respective source repository with all the comments and commits. This
>> is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica
>> of the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments
>> and commits.
>>>> Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart
> merge
>>> from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our
> development
>> and test environment to do ant run-install.
>>>> This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local
>> changes.
>>>> Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large
>> development
>>> and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start
>> developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and
>> then start working on it.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> with best regards,
>>>> Vikrant
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only the
>>> initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found
>> fully ready.
>>>> For information on whether or not you should use it, please look
> at
>>> this resource:
>>>>
> http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM, <[hidden email]>
>
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a
> new
>>>>> branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
>>>>> community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue
> to
>>> use
>>>>> trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository
>> structure
>>>>> is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps
>> for
>>>>> CRM and financials.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
>>> keep
>>>>> track of merge and branching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> with best regards,
>>>>> Vikrant
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
>>>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
>> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>>>
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
>> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
>

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Branch Release 4.0

Administrator

Vikrant,

I knew someone has already reported something about SVK. Vinay did. Here
is the link if of any help http://tinyurl.com/3456o2

Jacques

> Hi Jonathon,
>
> Thats exactly the thing I just do a sync with ofbiz svn once and then
its just an incremental sync never a full sync and thats the beauty of
setting up mirror with SVK. Moreover my merging and branching both are
tracked along with revision and commits.

>
> regards,
> Vikrant
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathon -- Improov [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 5:19 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
>
> Vikrant,
>
> Why would you need a blow-by-blow view of the OFBiz SVN?
>
> Personally, I find it more convenient to take out chunks of updates

from OFBiz SVN (like Jacques'
> referenced documents suggest).
>
> The merge is the tricky part. Sometimes, the merge could have
conflicts, but getting obvious conflicts (reported by SVN merge or
patch) is the lesser evil; at least you know which files to review.
Other times, the merge may contain no textual conflicts, but have
logical (runtime) conflicts instead.
>
> I find it useful to create a large patch file first, rather than
updating my customized branch directly. This large patch file (say
between OFBiz trunk r1000 and r2000) will be pre-processed before I
actually perform the merge. Pre-processing includes listing the files I
have changed since bringing in r1000, matching this list with the patch
file, and quickly narrowing down to the list of files I may need to
review for conflicts.
>
> But you may ask "isn't such review non-automated and tedious"? First,
the review only involves those areas that both I and OFBiz community
have separately (without collaboration) changed.
> Second, the review gives me a great view of what the community is up
to. A lot of work, perhaps, but only for those areas of overlap I just
mentioned. In any case, I would've needed to put in the effort to
collaborate with the community anyway, and this review is merely a form
of collaboration in a "do my own homework" style.
>
> Still, despite the necessity for the above-mentioned review, I don't
often find areas of overlap.
> There's a way to do insulated customizations, such that you reduce the
areas of overlap.
>
> I find the OFBiz SVN very heavy (35MB of 3rd-party code binaries). And
that's why I prefer dealing with patches (deltas), rather than
maintaining a whole 70+(?) MB of SVN that is an exact replica of OFBiz
SVN.
>
> Jonathon
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> > I am aware of the 2 documents. But this both doesn't actually
fulfill my requirement of having all the comments and incremental
commits from the upstream sources. In my local repository the changesets
and revision of ofbiz are exact replica of the svn repository hosted on
apache. If I do a clean export and then import it in my local
repository, i found the process to be cumbersome to update again from
the new changes in the ofbiz repository, moreover I lose the changesets
and revisions on the ofbiz repository itself, since a clean export
cannot do it. The only way to have the fill exact copy using svn is
using dump and restore, which requires a shell access to the subversion
server.
> >
> > This is the reason I used SVK which is exactly like dumping a
repository on apache subversion server and restoring it on my server.

> >
> > regards,
> > Vikrant
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 3:28 PM
> > To: [hidden email]; Jacques Le Roux
> > Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
> >
> > Vikrant,
> >
> > Are you aware of those documents ?
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/8gI
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/l
> >
> > Anyway, a good page to put you document should be
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/x/kg
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >> Hi Vikrant,
> >>
> >> A published document about your merging strategy should be very
> >> interesting for sure !
> >> For the moment I use a simple one (dealing with Opentaps components
> >> as
> >> well) but yes it begin being more complex with now branches in

OFBiz

> > and
> >> current changes in Opentaps.
> >>
> >> Thanks for sharing
> >>
> >> Jacques
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Jacques,
> >>>
> >>> If you know Opentaps has its own SVN repository, ofbiz has its own
> >> repository. On top of that opentaps indeed has different repository
> > for
> >> its components. So it was getting very hard for me to keep and

merge
> > all
> >> the upstream changes to my trunk as you know ofbiz needs to be
merged
> >> with trunk. The financials and crm resides in hot-deploy/financials
> > and
> >> hot-deploy/crmsfa. So the merge from opentaps should be on
> >> hot-deploy/financials and hot-deploy/crmsfa so I used SVK (I
already

> > use
> >> their product RT, its acquired by Best Practical) on top of
> >> subversion and build a automated script which would do the work of
> >> merging the upstream with my local changes preserving the comments
> >> and updates
> > from
> >> the upstream sources.
> >>> Indeed I am planning on writing a full document describing this
> > should
> >> be ready by monday and would publish it for everyone. I think this
> >> problem is not my own specific but with everyone who is working on
> >> opensource projects.
> >>> Thanks
> >>> with best regards,
> >>> Vikrant
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 PM
> >>> To: [hidden email]
> >>> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
> >>>
> >>> Vikrant,
> >>>
> >>> Out of subject and just by curiosity.
> >>> Which distributed version control are you using on top of

subversion

> > ?
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Jacques
> >>>
> >>> De : <[hidden email]>
> >>>> Hi David,
> >>>>
> >>>> To be precise my SVN structure is like this currently
> >>>>
> >>>> tags
> >>>> branches
> >>>> trunk
> >>>> trunk/hot-deploy/crmsfa
> >>>> trunk/hot-deploy/financials
> >>>> trunk/hot-deploy/warehouse
> >>>> trunk/hot-deploy/opentaps-common
> >>>> upstream/ofbiz
> >>>> upstream/crmsfa
> >>>> upstream/financials
> >>>> upstream/ warehouse
> >>>> upstream/opentaps-common
> >>>>
> >>>> Now all the upstream branches gets automatic updates from the
> >>> respective source repository with all the comments and commits.

This

> >> is an automated process and the upstream branches are exact replica
> >> of the ofbiz and other subversion repository including the comments
> >> and commits.
> >>>> Then there is an automated process to incrementally do a smart
> > merge
> >>> from upstream to trunk. Then we checkout the trunk on our
> > development
> >> and test environment to do ant run-install.
> >>>> This way I keep all the upstream changes along with my local
> >> changes.
> >>>> Currently we were looking for a stable base to do a large
> >> development
> >>> and this is the reason raised this question. Indeed when we start
> >> developing we would branch the trunk to our own 1.0.0 version and
> >> then start working on it.
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> with best regards,
> >>>> Vikrant
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: David E. Jones [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
> >>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>> Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The release branch for 4.0 was created yesterday. This is only

the

> >>> initial branch and it has not been stabilized or tested and found
> >> fully ready.
> >>>> For information on whether or not you should use it, please look
> > at
> >>> this resource:
> >>>>
> > http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+Getting+Started
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:57 PM,

<[hidden email]>

> >
> >>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recently was browsing the SVN repository of ofbiz and found a
> > new
> >>>>> branch of 4.0. Currently I am working out of trunk. So anyone in
> >>>>> community would suggest whether I should go ahead and continue
> > to
> >>> use
> >>>>> trunk or change to branch 4.0. Since my current repository
> >> structure
> >>>>> is exact replica of ofbiz with additional modules from opentaps
> >> for
> >>>>> CRM and financials.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am using a distributed version control on top of subversion to
> >>> keep
> >>>>> track of merge and branching.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> with best regards,
> >>>>> Vikrant
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> >>>>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> >>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> >>>>
> >>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date:
> >>> 4/24/2007 5:43 PM
> >>>
> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> >> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
> >>>
> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> >> 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> > 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
> > 4/26/2007 3:23 PM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:

4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>

Vikrant.Rathore

RE: Branch Release 4.0

In reply to this post by Vikrant.Rathore

Hi Jacques,

Had a look at it earlier. Actually what i am doing is very different from this one. Once you see the document would be able to see how it is different.

Thanks
with best regards,
Vikrant

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Le Roux [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 1:44 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Branch Release 4.0

Vikrant,

I knew someone has already reported something about SVK. Vinay did. Here is the link if of any help http://tinyurl.com/3456o2

Jacques

> Hi Jonathon,
>
> Thats exactly the thing I just do a sync with ofbiz svn once and then
its just an incremental sync never a full sync and thats the beauty of setting up mirror with SVK. Moreover my merging and branching both are tracked along with revision and commits.

from OFBiz SVN (like Jacques'
> referenced documents suggest).
>
> The merge is the tricky part. Sometimes, the merge could have
conflicts, but getting obvious conflicts (reported by SVN merge or
patch) is the lesser evil; at least you know which files to review.
Other times, the merge may contain no textual conflicts, but have logical (runtime) conflicts instead.
>
> I find it useful to create a large patch file first, rather than
updating my customized branch directly. This large patch file (say between OFBiz trunk r1000 and r2000) will be pre-processed before I actually perform the merge. Pre-processing includes listing the files I have changed since bringing in r1000, matching this list with the patch file, and quickly narrowing down to the list of files I may need to review for conflicts.
>
> But you may ask "isn't such review non-automated and tedious"? First,
the review only involves those areas that both I and OFBiz community have separately (without collaboration) changed.
> Second, the review gives me a great view of what the community is up
to. A lot of work, perhaps, but only for those areas of overlap I just mentioned. In any case, I would've needed to put in the effort to collaborate with the community anyway, and this review is merely a form of collaboration in a "do my own homework" style.
>
> Still, despite the necessity for the above-mentioned review, I don't
often find areas of overlap.
> There's a way to do insulated customizations, such that you reduce the
areas of overlap.
>
> I find the OFBiz SVN very heavy (35MB of 3rd-party code binaries). And
that's why I prefer dealing with patches (deltas), rather than maintaining a whole 70+(?) MB of SVN that is an exact replica of OFBiz SVN.
>
> Jonathon
>
> [hidden email] wrote:
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> > I am aware of the 2 documents. But this both doesn't actually
fulfill my requirement of having all the comments and incremental commits from the upstream sources. In my local repository the changesets and revision of ofbiz are exact replica of the svn repository hosted on apache. If I do a clean export and then import it in my local repository, i found the process to be cumbersome to update again from the new changes in the ofbiz repository, moreover I lose the changesets and revisions on the ofbiz repository itself, since a clean export cannot do it. The only way to have the fill exact copy using svn is using dump and restore, which requires a shell access to the subversion server.
> >
> > This is the reason I used SVK which is exactly like dumping a
repository on apache subversion server and restoring it on my server.

OFBiz

subversion

This

the

<[hidden email]>

4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date:
4/26/2007 3:23 PM
>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/780 - Release Date: 4/29/2007 6:30 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/780 - Release Date: 4/29/2007 6:30 AM