[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [platform-vcm-dev] team and vcm compatibility?
|
Correct on both fronts. The difference from 1.0 to 2.0 API is
considerable. There is no description for streams because what you can do
with their equivalents in each repository is significantly different.
But it turns out that with the new story, providers will be able to achieve
both close and rich integration with the development environment, which is
really the important thing. It turned out that the more we provided, the
more restricted it ended up being because of the subtle and significant
semantic differences between repository types.
Kevin
"Vladimir Grishchenko"
<vladgri@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <platform-vcm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc:
platform-vcm-dev-admin@e Subject: Re: [platform-vcm-dev] team and vcm compatibility?
clipse.org
03/12/01 07:57 PM
Please respond to
platform-vcm-dev
> It depends on what you mean by "Compatible". If you mean API compatible,
> since there was none in 1.0, then there is no issue for 2.0 :)
>
> If you mean at the user experience level when using CVS, then the answer
> is that we will still have streams, but they will be called branches like
> they are supposed to be.
>
> Other than that, its really up to the individual provider to decide how
> best to represent their repository's workflow, which may or may not have
> streams which may or may not be the same as what was in 1.0.
>
I agree there was no public API in 1.0, but one could attempt to fit a
repository adapter through org.eclipse.vcm.core.adapters EP, and that
adapter must have dealt with team streams, in some form, to allow merging
project branches. By being "Compatible" I mean that the result of that
attempt (clean or not from API point of view) would work under 2.0 with
some
minor changes. I believe that the answer is "NO" :) (just wanted to make
sure). I understand that 1.0 was very CVS centric and didn't map cleanly
to
other repositories. AFAIU you want to make provider interface as neutral as
possible this time but give other ways to enrich user interface, right?
--Vlad.
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Vladimir Grishchenko" <vladgri@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: platform-vcm-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 12/03/2001 05:34 PM
> Please respond to platform-vcm-dev
>
>
> To: <platform-vcm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc:
> Subject: [platform-vcm-dev] team and vcm compatibility?
>
> Hello,
>
> Looked at the released 2.0 sources. Looks like team streams are gone. Is
> it
> true that there will be no backward VCM 1.0 compatibility in new team
> architecture?
>
> Regards,
> --Vladimir.
> _______________________________________________
> platform-vcm-dev mailing list
> platform-vcm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-vcm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> platform-vcm-dev mailing list
> platform-vcm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-vcm-dev
>
_______________________________________________
platform-vcm-dev mailing list
platform-vcm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-vcm-dev
