2009/9/22 Jack Cai <[email protected]> > I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently all the > vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are going to put > them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the same version? > So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update all the vendors' version?
-Rex > -Jack > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and just bit >> myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of the changes IDEA >> made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life clearer and simpler. >> >> 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which is not >> really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca connector >> framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to separate them. >> >> 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience in the >> geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with separately >> versioned subprojects all under trunk. >> >> So, I'd like to propose >> >> ql/ >> +/branches >> +/tags >> +/trunk >> >> ra/ >> +/branches >> +/tags >> +/trunk >> >> >> Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual >> vendor directories such as derby, oracle, etc. >> >> Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags will >> cause problems? >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> >
