I don't believe any other Castle projects depend on it, but I have a few 
projects that use it. e.g.  I use it in my ASP.NET MVC stuff in conjunction 
with DictionaryAdapter to do my data-binding to interface models.   Since DA 
lives in core already, it would make sense to keep the happy family together.

thanks

On Jul 1, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira wrote:

> Yup. Which project depends on it, besides MR?
> 
> Sent from my Windows Phone From: Craig Neuwirt
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 4:50 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Vote] Submodules vs Aggregation of some repositories
> Can you merge Castle.Components.Binder with Castle.Core instead of
> Castle.Monorail?
> 
> On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:56 AM, hammett wrote:
> 
>> Since the conversation stalled, I'll go ahead and merge the
>> subprojects this weekend. Will leave the creation of a master repos
>> for later.
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> My opinion now is that we should cancel this poll and start a thread talking
>>> about release cycles of the projects to determine if Krzysztof/John's
>>> suggestions are appropriate.
>>> 
>>> I agree with others that to streamline the committer and user experience
>>> will be to combine projects that we will always ship together because they
>>> belong together. In this area, focusing on our 4 main projects like ours
>>> docs have seems to be consensus, however we may have to work outwards from
>>> that if there are a few that shouldn't ship as part of a larger project.
>>> 
>>> We might also like to set up a TeamCity build that pulls from the masters to
>>> provide us a large build to more easily test for regressions and intentional
>>> breaking changes.
>>> 
>>> I guess after all that, I'm a +1 for #2 :)
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:43 AM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I think the underlying problem is how to streamline the experience for
>>>> us and users. I have no experience with submodules or subtrees, so
>>>> thanks for the info on that. If combining *some* of the repositories
>>>> is enough for delivering a better experience, let's go with that.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I know this is meant to be a vote only thread, but before I cast a
>>>>> binding
>>>>> vote (which will change things from being tied 3-3), I need a bit more
>>>>> information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I read the Pro Git page on subtrees but still find it confusing how
>>>>> pushing
>>>>> upstream will work for a subtree. We also have the scenario where a
>>>>> non-committer wants to provide a patch back to us so they will still
>>>>> need to
>>>>> fork one or more of the base repositories, which will mean the subtree
>>>>> based
>>>>> repo will not work unless they also make changes in that cloned repo to
>>>>> point to their forked repo. If we promote users to clone the super-repo
>>>>> rather than the individual ones, then we'll be requiring users to deal
>>>>> with
>>>>> more complexity of this type of git set up.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there much need to maintain a super-repo of the official masters in
>>>>> github, when we could just provide a script to clone/pull all the
>>>>> existing
>>>>> repos into the current directory. TeamCity can also easily be set up to
>>>>> pull
>>>>> from multiple git repositories to perform an build across all projects.
>>>>> I do
>>>>> understand we'll need a script to run the build scripts of each tree and
>>>>> copy the dependencies over to the next tree before running the build
>>>>> script.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Because users still need to fork each repository they want to commit to,
>>>>> I
>>>>> think it would make sense to combine some of the repos as Krzysztof
>>>>> suggested.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As mentioned by several people I don't think this is one or the other
>>>>> vote.
>>>>> I see no problem someone setting up a subtree based repo if that helps,
>>>>> but
>>>>> I am also pro combining some of the repositories. Looking back now we
>>>>> can
>>>>> definitely say that we did split the repos apart a little too much.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:17 AM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vote results
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> binding
>>>>>> Option [1] 3 votes
>>>>>> Option [2] 3 votes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> nonbinding
>>>>>> Option [1] 2 votes
>>>>>> Option [2] 1 vote
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We will need to either wait for an untie vote or go back and re-think
>>>>>> the options.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> hammett
>>>>>> http://hammett.castleproject.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups
>>>>>> "Castle Project Development List" group.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jono
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups
>>>>> "Castle Project Development List" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> [email protected].
>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> hammett
>>>> http://hammett.castleproject.org/
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>> "Castle Project Development List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>> [email protected].
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> [email protected].
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jono
>>> 
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Castle Project Development List" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> hammett
>> http://hammett.castleproject.org/
>> 
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Castle Project Development List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> [email protected].
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Castle Project Development List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Castle Project Development List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Castle Project Development List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.

Reply via email to