Re: [picocontainer-dev] RE: *** SPAM *** [8.2/6.0] Re: [picocontainer-dev] patches for *full* binding-annotation capability

>
>> In this case, Konstantin has a potentially large change to merge
>> back.  If I applied my change to trunk first, it will be quite hard
>> for him.
>
> It does not matter. The work is always the same. If you merge back  
> your changes first, he can merge all changes from your branch into  
> his own. If he merges back first, you can do the same.

Not strictly true -

Armed with the patch for reference, I have the option of  
reapplication (doing it from scratch again).  The learnings are not  
lost, it might be easier for me to redo feature afresh after  
Konstantin's merge back.  IntelliJ makes it easy to move impl and  
tests around together :)



>
>>  He already has a moderate risk of not-completing his goal,
>> it'll be worse if I go off in a divergent direction on trunk.
>> If Konstantin is as respectful (he's a 'good egg') he'll take a look
>> at the patch and suggest that its mergeable after his change, or
>> before it, or accomotate the same changes in his branch (chasing the
>> JasonsTestCase 'specification')
>
> This task is much easier using the svn merge command as proposed  
> above. That gives even the possibility of an incremental merge i.e.  
> if Konstantin decides today to merge your branch, but cannot merge  
> back into trunk yet, he still may take quite easily all additional  
> changes until he is ready. With your single patch it is alway an  
> all-or-nothing.

Agree, there are many incremental strategies.
>

- Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email