"Tim O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I know that most posters love "Option A", however this makes it very
hard to "check out the whole commons" in one go. Which is what
e.g. the maven reactor builds would like to have (are they still
used?) or the commons builds, that need the site module.
You have the "symlinks option" already with subversion 1.0; it is
called "svn:externals". It is not very maintainable IMHO, though.
So, personally I'm +1 for the subversion move, -0 for Option A and +1
for Option B.
Regards
Henning
>--_56C95760-3542-4CAA-8B06-025FDD8B49FA_
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>I don't think we ever settled this question.=20
>Which SVN structure are we interested in?
>** Option A:
>jakarta/
> commons/
> digester/
> trunk/
> tags/
> branches/
> beanutils/
> trunk/
> tags/
> branches/
>OR=20
>** Option B:
>jakarta/
> commons/
> trunk/
> digester/
> beanutils/
> tags/
> digester/
> beanutils/
> branches/
> digester/
> beanutils/
>--_56C95760-3542-4CAA-8B06-025FDD8B49FA_--
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/
RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire
Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development
What is more important to you...
[ ] Product Security
or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support
-- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
