Yup, this is inline with my thinking as well.
--jason
On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
This is what I meant by "top-level"
Something like:
geronimo/
devtools/
daytrader/
transaction/
connector/
server/
xbean/
plugins/
Then have branch, tags and trunk under them. I think this makes a
lot of sense.
Jason Dillon wrote:
Before we start moving components into separate trees, I hope we
can think ahead a bit and consider a plan for how to organize
chunks of components into a small set of trees. I think that if
we just pluck them off one by one as peers to trunk that we will
end up with a messy svn repo. I'd like to see those components
organized into categories within our repo.
I'd also like to eventually do away with the top-level /trunk, /
tags and /branches... and instead move that into a top-level
tree... very similar to how the maven repo is:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/
--jason
On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I can see the difficulty pointed out by Jason and the benefit
raised by Dain. I've never liked versioning parts of Geronimo
that rarely change and am all for making things more consumable
externally.
The proposal as it stands is fairly generic. Is the idea to
relocate Tx Manager and Connector to be top-level projects
withing Geronimo and build separately or some kind of hybrid in
the current tree. If we are going to release them independently
then I think they should be top-level in Geronimo (and I know
thats a lot more work).
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
What do everyone think about changing the transaction and
connector modules to be versioned independently of the main
Geronimo server?
-dain
