Alex Karasulu a écrit :
Do we do this for shared and for clients and for the daemon stuff too?
hmmmm. Not sure. They are part of the server, aren't they?
I mean, if you modify them, and fail, the server won't compile anymore.
It's not the case for ldapstudio and triplesec.
Alex
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Alex Karasulu a écrit :
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Hi,
what about moving those guys down one level? It's really painfull
to have to dowload mb of jars when you want to check out the trunks...
Yeap those jars are a problem. How about we put them in a maven REPO?
no, this is not what I had in mind. The main problem is that
ldapstudio and ADS are pretty much separate project. It's not really
obvious that they must share the same trunk. Triplesec is also a
separate project. And at some point, I'm not sure that it is a good
idea to have a common pom.xml for all those guys in trunks, because
them it will be mor and more difficult to guarantee that trunks is
always 'buildable' at all time : too many people will risk to break
the build with a bad commit, and it will take too long to build the
whole project before committing.
We could have such a structure :
Yeah we were using this structure except we were calling trunks ->
trunk instead. Then someone had the idea of keeping all trunks
together in a trunks directory.
I think it made sense when it was about ads itself. Now with
ldapstudio representing half the size of ADS itself, and triplesec
being a fat baby too, I'm not sure it worth it anymore.
I think this was Enrique's idea. Perhaps he can elaborate on why we
did this. I no longer remember why but just got used to this
configuration.
The 'why' should remain history, at this point. What was good a year
ago may not be good now, IMHO. The separation could make sense now,
and we may go back to a grand-reunification in one year, I don't
know. Right now, my guts ask for a little separation, like what we
did for MINA (not that I want ldapstudio to become a TLP :).
