[Pywps-dev] development workflow update

[Jachym Cepicky]

web page updated btw

ne 14. 2. 2016 v 21:35 odesílatel Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>
napsal:

> this is HUGE
>
> thanks!
>
> ne 14. 2. 2016 v 19:09 odesílatel Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
> napsal:
>
>> Done.  Notes:
>>
>> - master is now updated.  Development for PyWPS 4 is in geopython/pywps
>> master
>> - 3.2 branch support happens in pywps-3.2
>> - just in case, I made a copy of master before the merge (branch
>> called master-old-2014-02-14
>> - devs should update their repos/forks accordingly before moving any
>> further
>>
>> ..Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Jachym Cepicky
>> <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > HI Tom,
>> >
>> > thanks for summarising the topic
>> >
>> > I was always saying: we should put stable release to master.
>> >
>> > But I think,  .. pywps-4 is now in "good enough" shape, so it can be
>> put to
>> > master branch.
>> >
>> > Anybody who uses "master" should be on the mailing list, so no big
>> surprise
>> > should occur, when the big bang happens.
>> >
>> > so from my perspective: any time now :)
>> >
>> > J
>> >
>> > čt 11. 2. 2016 v 21:29 odesílatel Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>> > napsal:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Luís.  FYI I've tested this approach against my fork for an
>> idea:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/tomkralidis/pywps
>> >>
>> >> Here is the commit history:
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/tomkralidis/pywps/commits/master
>> >>
>> >> Note that last push is the action that updates master.
>> >>
>> >> As well, I would push a backup copy of master called master-old before
>> >> merging just in case.
>> >>
>> >> Thoughts on moving forward?  To recap, propose pywps-4 branch to become
>> >> the new master branch and branch pywps-3.2 is our 3.x support.
>> >>
>> >> ..Tom
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Luís de Sousa wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:51:49 +0100
>> >> > From: Luís de Sousa <luis.a.de.sousa at gmail.com>
>> >> > To: Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>> >> > Cc: "pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org" <pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Pywps-dev] development workflow update
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Tom,
>> >> >
>> >> > I understand your points; the ours strategy looks appropriate.
>> >> >
>> >> > Luís
>> >> >
>> >> > On 11 February 2016 at 13:30, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Luís: good question.  IMHO keeping both under the same repostory
>> >> >> makes sense from a project viability perspective:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - we are in OSGeo incubation for 3. Doing a merge now keeps the
>> >> >>   project straight / clean over time
>> >> >> - since the incubation started in 3, it is not clear if the
>> >> >>   application will be valid after rewriting the software, dump the
>> old
>> >> >>   code base and starting from scratch.  Having said this, 4 will
>> have
>> >> >> to
>> >> >>   to be mature, which takes time, with lots of deployments and
>> >> >> community
>> >> >>   behind it
>> >> >> - there is already a considerable community around 3 so let's
>> leverage
>> >> >>   that existing community
>> >> >> - the licensing change and rewrite between PyWPS 3 and 4 does not
>> >> >> present
>> >> >>   any complications
>> >> >> - packaging management becomes much easier along a single path
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ..Tom
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Luís de Sousa wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:44:25 +0100
>> >> >>> From: Luís de Sousa <luis.a.de.sousa at gmail.com>
>> >> >>> To: Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>> >> >>> Cc: "pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org" <pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [Pywps-dev] development workflow update
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Hi there Tom,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> What are the advantages of merging the two git projects? It seems
>> far
>> >> >>> simpler to keep versions 3 and 4 separated.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Luís
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 11 February 2016 at 02:37, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> More thoughts:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Given current master and pywps-4 branches have totally different
>> >> >>>> commit histories, it is not possible to simply merge pywps-4 into
>> >> >>>> master via GitHub pull request.  One option we could consider is
>> >> >>>> using
>> >> >>>> the "ours" merge strategy:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> git checkout pywps-4
>> >> >>>> git merge -s ours master
>> >> >>>> git checkout master
>> >> >>>> git merge pywps-4
>> >> >>>> git push -f origin master
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> This essentially pushes pywps-4 into master branch without wiping
>> out
>> >> >>>> master branch history.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ..Tom
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Tom Kralidis <
>> tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Hi all: FYI the following have been completed
>> >> >>>>> against https://github.com/geopython/pywps:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> - master branch is up to date
>> >> >>>>> - issues / milestones are up to date and represent 3.x and 4.x
>> plans
>> >> >>>>> - branch pywps-4 represents our PyWPS 4 effort
>> >> >>>>> - branch pywps-3.2 represents our 3.x development.  At this
>> point in
>> >> >>>>> time
>> >> >>>>> any
>> >> >>>>>   fixes in master that apply to 3.x should be also applied to
>> branch
>> >> >>>>> pywps-3.2
>> >> >>>>> - any further 3.x releases are to built/tagged/released off
>> branch
>> >> >>>>> pywps-3.2
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> At some point branch pywps-4 will be merged as master and
>> pywps-3.2
>> >> >>>>> will
>> >> >>>>> be
>> >> >>>>> our 3.x support branch.  From that point forward, any changes in
>> >> >>>>> master
>> >> >>>>> should _not_ be applied to branch pywps-3.2 given the backward
>> >> >>>>> compability break.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I'd like to hear thoughts on pywps-4 -> master efforts and when
>> >> >>>>> folks
>> >> >>>>> think is a good time to move that over.  The idea here is that we
>> >> >>>>> have
>> >> >>>>> supported releases (3.2.3) to download or pip install, and master
>> >> >>>>> represents development.  Does anyone have any knowledge that
>> master
>> >> >>>>> is being used operationally anywhere (which is a bad idea given
>> it's
>> >> >>>>> not a release).
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Cheers
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> ..Tom
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>> pywps-dev mailing list
>> >> >>>> pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pywps-dev
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> pywps-dev mailing list
>> >> pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pywps-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pywps-dev/attachments/20160214/c75dd323/attachment-0001.html>