nunit-dev team mailing list archive

["Charlie Poole" <charlie@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

> I can't remember if NUnit 2.5 was CVS or SVN.  If it's svn, 
> the import should be pretty straigtforward.  If it's CVS, it 
> would probably require a bit more, but not too much.

It's CVS, but Michael says he can do it. :-)
 
> > Option 1 - Leave 2.5 on Sourceforge
> > We would continue to accept bugs on 2.5 and maintain it separately 
> > there. If the same bugs applied to 3.0, I guess we would 
> have to enter 
> > them manually and work on them separately. At least that's the only 
> > way I know how to do it. :-)
> 
> You can always set up bug watches on Launchpad that will 
> allow you to create a bug on LP and SF, and then when the SF 
> bug changes, it can be updated in LP.
 
That's cool. Can you expand on how to do it?

> > 
> > Option 2 - Import 2.5 to Launchpad and work on it there.
> > We'd also want to handle bugs on Launchpad, which (I
> > believe) would make it possible for us to mark them as 
> affecting both 
> > projects. I think we can also import the old bugs when cutting over.
> 
> Yeah, you can have bugs that affect both projects.
> 
> > Option 3 - Leave 2.5 on Sourceforge but re-instate the 
> mirror so that 
> > the source code is more accessible.
> > Frankly, I don't see that this has much benefit, since we 
> would really 
> > rather focus on 3.0 - not encourage more development of 2.5.
> 
> You could always just keep resyncing it, but that's kind of a 
> pain.  I've tried this myself before, and it becomes a 
> maintenance nightmare.

I agree - really, I think it's either #1 or #2.

> > I guess what it comes down to is this: "Would it be easier 
> to maintain 
> > 2.5 and merge changes if we had the code on Launchpad?"
> > 
> > Some technical issues:
> > 
> > * There would be no true relationship between our
> >   branch of 2.5 and any 3.0 branches. Would we still
> >   be able to apply the same fixes - at least while
> >   they have not significantly diverged?
> 
> Even on the import, you probably wouldn't be able to *easily* 
> apply the fixes to both branches, because they really don't 
> have the same revisions in them.
> Patch would be your best bet, although there is some arcane 
> bzr command that will attempt it (and it's never worked for me).

Yes, so long as the two have not diverged significantly, I imagine
patching could work pretty well. Once they diverge further, we
can fix conflicts manually.
 
> > * How can we easily get our bugs into Launchpad?
> 
> The bugs guys can import them.  Asking a question on the 
> launchpad-bugs project is a good start.

OK - I'll ask about that if we decide on option #2.

So far, it sounds to me like coordinating bug fixes has
to be based on patches in either case. It sounds like the
real differences are...

1. Using Bazaar plus CVS versus Bazaar only.

2. Using two bug trackers versus just one.

3. Being able to apply a bug to two projects on Launchpad.

More input, folks? I'm leaning to #2.

Charlie

> Cheers,
> Paul
>