Re: Community update

Bob Jacoby wrote:

> Thanks for all the responses. I guess I'm still a little confused on 
> the difference between APLAWS and APLAWS+. Your and Richard's 
> statements seem to have subtle differences, but this may be due to the 
> APLAWS vs APLAWS+ thing.

APLAWS+ is the name (not sure if it's formal or informal) I use to refer 
to the second major release of APLAWS.

> APLAWS was a fork from the original CCM codebase. It provided 
> additional features (and perhaps bug fixes) that were not supported 
> within CCM. APLAWS+ is separate from APLAWS and bundles together various

APLAWS was a fork but has since been merged. Only customers who haven't 
upgraded to APLAWS+ are still running APLAWS.

> applications and components. APLAWS+ pieces were written to be based 
> on the APLAWS fork of the CCM and would not work against CCM itself. 
> The APLAWS fork has, for the most part, been merged back in to the

No, APLAWS+ runs fine on CCM because we merged everything back. (One of 
the main goals of the APLAWS+ effort).

> CCM codebase and for all intensive purposes doesn't exist anymore. 
> APLAWS+ can therefore work against the CCM codebase, with the 
> exception of a few pieces that still require the APLAWS fork (I assume 
> due to some functionality in APLAWS that wasn't merged in to the CCM 
> codebase).

I don't know of any pieces of APLAWS+ that require the APLAWS fork 
(which basically only exists off of the 5.2 branch, and to a much lesser 
extent off of 6.0). APLAWS+ is 6.1 based.

> From Richard's statement I infer that APLAWS+ still makes 
> modifications to code that exists within the CCM codebase so another 
> fork exists - just at a higher level. With the move to ObjectWeb do 
> APLAWS+ developers

The APLAWS+ developers sometimes make small changes to CCM. These 
changes tend to be bug fixes.

> intend to stop introducing these core changes in to APLAWS+ and put 
> them in CCM from the beginning?

That's our goal, but I suspect that there will be some kinks to get 
worked out in this process. In the short-term, I expect that the APLAWS+ 
developers will continue to introduce bug fixes into their branch of 
CCM. We're putting processes into place to avoid turning that branch 
into a fork. The APLAWS folks feel that Subversion is a prerequisite for 
moving away from that model (we're looking to move to Subversion at 
ObjectWeb as soon as the nice OW folks finish testing). Ultimately, I'd 
like for everyone to be rooted off of ObjectWeb hosted trees.

Richard


-- 
Redhat-ccm-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-ccm-list
Archives: https://www.redhat.com/pipermail/redhat-ccm-list/