Merge to halalanup branch

[Darwin Bautista]

Hi devs,

First of all, Merry Christmas to all!

I've merged all the latest changesets in the default branch (and backed out the new DB-related changesets) to the halalanup branch.

The merge was not an easy and straightforward one (several 3-way merges). As such, I haven't pushed the latest commits back to the halalan repository yet. Anyway, the "new" halalanup branch is essentially the current halalanup branch + post 1.5.0-alpha changes + CI 1.7.3

You can clone the repo with the merged halalanup branch here:

https://daruuin-halalanup.googlecode.com/hg/

Take note that this is just a temporary clone. I think you can also push your changesets here.

Also, you can view the changes here (currently only three new changesets):

http://code.google.com/r/daruuin-halalanup/source/list

- Darwin

[Darwin Bautista]

UPDATE:

hg URI: https://daruuin-halalan.googlecode.com/hg/

Google Code page: http://code.google.com/r/daruuin-halalan/source/list

Also, our live demos are up and running once again. They can be accessed here:

https://unplug.eee.upd.edu.ph/halalan/demo/

default - latest code from the 'default' branch (you can think of it as SVN trunk)

halalanup - latest code from the 'halalanup' branch (from my hg clone; basically halalanup + 1.5.0 changes + CI 1.7.3 update)

release - code from the latest release (currently 1.5.0)

[Waldemar Bautista]

I'm thinking we could officially support a Halalan UP repository
(which can have Diliman branches, Manila branches, and so on) since
some changes requested by UP are hard to generalize and thus, cannot
be included in the official Halalan. Also, there are features wanted
by one campus that are not needed by another and vice versa.

The way I see it, the development can be like the following:
- general changes in Halalan repo
- specific UP changes in Halalan UP repo
- if a campus request a feature which is deemed not needed by all
other campuses, default branch can be branched out to a campus branch
(e.g., default -> diliman)
- if the said feature is somehow applicable to all campuses, it
can be merged into the default branch
- if the specific UP changes are somehow redesigned to be more
general, they can be merged into the Halalan repo
- Halalan UP repo can merge the general changes from Halalan repo
every once in a while

--
Waldemar Amado Bautista

[Darwin Bautista]

I agree. However, there can be two possible setups:

1. One Halalan UP repository with many branches

   - or -

2. A Halalan UP repo for the general changes (clone of official repo), and a separate repo for each campus (which are clones of the Halalan UP repo)

Which do you think is better?

The advantage of (1) is that everything is kept in a single repo. The disadvantage is that the graph of the repo history would get more "tangled" and confusing as time goes by and as more branches are introduced because there would be more [named] branch merges.

The advantage of (2) is that the "flow" of changesets is more obvious, manageable, and organized (more linear history since we only have to merge changesets in the same branch). Also, the possibility of screwing everything up is small since everything is kept in a separate repo. The sole disadvantage is that we have to host more repos (with separate histories).

I'm for #2 since it'll be easier to maintain in the long run.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Halalan Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to halal...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to halalan-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/halalan-dev?hl=en.

[Waldemar Bautista]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Darwin Bautista <dar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which do you think is better?

I think #2 is a better setup. Let's go with that.

--
Waldemar Amado Bautista

[Darwin Bautista]

I was thinking of using Google Code-hosted clones but then I remembered that we can create multiple repos in a single project. :D

Anyway, if we're going with #2, I think we should create a wiki page for the typical workflow to avoid problems.

I'll make a draft later.

[Waldemar Bautista]

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Darwin Bautista <dar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was thinking of using Google Code-hosted clones but then I remembered that
> we can create multiple repos in a single project. :D

Hehe. I already created a repo for 2.0.0 and it's for real this time.
Hehe. I'm also looking at the code which will become CodeIgniter 2.0
and will start building Halalan 2.0.0 using it.

> Anyway, if we're going with #2, I think we should create a wiki page for the
> typical workflow to avoid problems.
> I'll make a draft later.

Okay. Thanks.

--
Waldemar Amado Bautista

[Darwin Bautista]

I still haven't started on the wiki page; I'm not yet 100% sure about
the whole thing.
Anyway, since we're going with approach #2, I propose this very
straightforward repository naming scheme:

up - Halalan repo with changes common among campuses
upd - Halalan repo with UPD-specific changes
upm - Halalan repo with UPM-specific changes
uplb - Halalan repo with UPLB-specific changes

and so on.
If ever we want to change the naming scheme, we can just create new
repos and delete the old ones. :D

Also, we can enforce a "pull only" policy so that most development and
bug-fixing would be concentrated in the main Halalan repository.
But since Google Code doesn't have a web-based solution for push/pull
between hosted repositories, somebody should manually facilitate the
flow of changesets.

With the "pull only" policy, the main Halalan repository will be the
"upstream" of the "up" repo. In turn, the "up" repo will be the
upstream of the "upd," "upm," and "uplb" repos. Changesets should
"flow" only downstream (main repo -> "up" repo, etc.) and not the
other way around (except in some rare cases, probably).

[Waldemar Bautista]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Darwin Bautista <dar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still haven't started on the wiki page; I'm not yet 100% sure about
> the whole thing.
> Anyway, since we're going with approach #2, I propose this very
> straightforward repository naming scheme:
>
> up - Halalan repo with changes common among campuses
> upd - Halalan repo with UPD-specific changes
> upm - Halalan repo with UPM-specific changes
> uplb - Halalan repo with UPLB-specific changes
>
> and so on.
> If ever we want to change the naming scheme, we can just create new
> repos and delete the old ones. :D

The names are okay. Anyway, we don't need to create those repos
immediately since last year, UPM used the default release and UPLB is
still under proposal. Only UPD has specific changes (column by party
in USC, popup notes when choosing abstain,...) which can be put under
the UP repo.

> Also, we can enforce a "pull only" policy so that most development and
> bug-fixing would be concentrated in the main Halalan repository.
> But since Google Code doesn't have a web-based solution for push/pull
> between hosted repositories, somebody should manually facilitate the
> flow of changesets.
>
> With the "pull only" policy, the main Halalan repository will be the
> "upstream" of the "up" repo. In turn, the "up" repo will be the
> upstream of the "upd," "upm," and "uplb" repos. Changesets should
> "flow" only downstream (main repo -> "up" repo, etc.) and not the
> other way around (except in some rare cases, probably).

Yes, that's okay. I think only a few specific changes will ever make
it back to the main repo.

--
Waldemar Amado Bautista

[Darwin Bautista]

The Halalan UP repo is up: http://code.google.com/p/halalan/source/list?repo=up
This repo contains only the default branch (changesets from the
halalanup branch were transferred to the default branch).

[Darwin Bautista]

FYI, the halalanup branch is now closed. Please clone the Halalan UP repo here:

http://code.google.com/p/halalan/source/checkout?repo=up

All UP-specific changes should be committed here and not in the main repo.
I will pull (and merge) changesets into this repo from the main repo
from time to time.

[Waldemar Bautista]

Okay. Thanks.

--
Waldemar Amado Bautista