2008/2/5, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Alexey, > > Are you planning to rationalise the common_resources/build and > common_resources/make directories[0]? Having both of these in use at > the same time is very, very confusing? > > I'm assuming the intention is that working_vm/build will be > cleaned up and that we'll just use it in a role similar to that of > working_classlib/build - i.e. not versioned but used to contain built > artifacts.
That's right, as I said drlvm was a pilot and jdktools/classlib should also move to using common_resources/make to complete the rationalization. I was going to perform this transition for jdktools, just have more priority tasks on my plate at the moment and would not mind if someone volunteers to help on this. > [0] To common_resources/make would be my preference > > On 5 February 2008 at 9:20, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Excellent! > > > > Before we get too comfortable with the changes we might want to think > > about whether: > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/common_resources > > > > should really be moved to: > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/harmony/enhanced/common_resources/trunk > > > > We are going to want to be able to reproduce build so having the > > capability to use branches and tags might be useful. And it would > > be more consistent with the layout of the other svn-switched > > sub-directories of the federated build. Sounds reasonable, please go for it. > > > > I'll take a look at moving the dependencies in classlib to common_resources > > but before I force everyone working on classlib to checkout common_resources > > I'd like to get this resolved so we don't end up breaking it later. Thanks! -- Alexey
