I don't see the attachment. - Brett
Piéroni Raphaël wrote: > Here is a proposition for the svn (see attached files) > Please fill free to comment (and modify to correct mistakes) > > Regards, > > Raphaël > > > 2006/3/8, Trygve Laugstøl <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: > > On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 06:34 +1100, Brett Porter wrote: > > Raphaël Piéroni wrote: > > >> That sounds like maven-archetype-mojo, that creates a mojo. > > >> > > >> Why don't we just have a whole bunch of subprojects, and then > categorise > > >> them on the front page? > > >> > > > Why do the maven repository was refactored into components, plugins, > > > archetypes ? ;) > > > > I'm not saying anything about the svn structure. I think calling > > something publically the "Mojo Archetype subproject" is undesirable. > > > > I'd be fine with splitting mojo into /plugins/, /archetypes/, > > /components/ and /sandbox/ too. > > Actually, I like this layout a whole lot. It would be just like Maven's > Apache repository which seem to work just great. I don't have time for > it right now, but I'd be +1 for someone to go ahead and move stuff > around in the repository. > > -- > Trygve > >
