Steven Noels wrote: > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > >> For third-party, unreleased or patched libs, a coherent naming scheme > >> and archive.apache.org offloading procedure should suffice. > > > > A coherent naming scheme is needed, but is archiving in a central > > location necessary (not talking of the infrastructure problems)? When > > you decide to deliver a project using a snapshot, that snapshot is > > generally a recent one (otherwise its changes are likely to be part of > > an official release) and the CVS repository is therefore still > > available. > > For "snapshot releases" of dependency libraries, I think adding and > versioning separate src jars of these specific libraries to CVS should > be enough - and could possibly boil down to a simple jar-up and commit > of said library's source code by the committer doing the library > upgrade. > > CVS sandbox size shouldn't be a concern IMHO.
Our CVS is already huge. This might frighten away of a lot of would-be developers. I am lucky because i recently upgraded from dial-up modem to ADSL. If holding sources in CVS is the only solution, then so be it. > - distribution size might > be for some, and would hopefully get solved once we split Cocoon into a > kernel project and a federation of Cocoon modules|blocks subprojects. > Until we are there, we might add an �ber-src-jar build target to the > build system collecting source dumps of those libraries and wrapping > those into a cocoon-unreleased-dependent-libs.jar we ship along the > real distribution. That is a great idea. > Since Ralph is very keen on this, maybe he can help to come up with > some Ant tasks. ;-) > > </Steven>
