On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 15:10 -0500, Tim O'Brien wrote:
> I agree with this commit.
>
> I think once a component has graduated it should no longer be a part of
> the sandbox, but we might need to make some exceptions for things like
> CLI. I believe CLI2 was developed in the sandbox eventhough CLI was in
> proper.
>
> Anyone else have any strong feelings here?
>
> Someone had mentioned that it would be valuable to preserve history by
> copying sandbox tags and branches to an "archives" directory for each
> component at the same level as branches and tags? Anyone?
Hmm.. you are proposing that when something gets promoted from sandbox,
that the original sandbox code for {project} should be moved into this
dir?
commons/proper/{project}/archives
Well, I do agree that code that has been promoted from sandbox should be
removed from the sandbox, leaving the sandbox with only "active"
projects. However I can't see what else would ever live in that
"archives" directory; if there is to be a directory whose only contents
will be the old sandbox stuff (including its own tags, branches, etc),
then perhaps "commons/proper/{project}/sandbox-promoted" might be a
better name than 'archive'?
Alternatively, archives of promoted stuff could be stored externally to
the related projects, eg "commons/sandbox-promoted/{project}" or
"commons/sandbox/promoted/{project}.
If a sandbox project should be declared "dead", then I think it also
should be moved, to commons/sandbox-dormant (or commons/sandbox/dormant)
or similar. Given this, it might make more sense to put promoted
projects in "commons/sandbox-promoted/{project}" than to put them under
the standard project dir.
This would ensure the sandbox contains only "active" projects.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
