Stas Bekman wrote:
I'm totally confused. Can someone who was working with infrastructure at apachecon explain the new layout of modperl projects under svn. I'm viewing http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl and it doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, first of all, if you want to browse the repository, you are far better of with regular http thru http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/
with a good old web browser.
I prefer viewcvs.cgi since it gives you a chance to see diffs and better annotated.
All I can see is:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl/docs/ http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl/
which doesn't seem to be right at all, why modperl and not modperl-2.0? the two generations are totally unrelated, so there is no point making those 2 different branches. Why the docs are nested inside modperl?
Well, that structure was more or less the result of a conversation with the folks in infractruture as they were moving a bunch of
projects under svn.
First, keep in mind that [svn]/perl is under our control (the modperl developers), so we are now entirely free
to make whatever changes we want and move things around, without the trouble it would have been with CVS.
Second, docs/ was placed under modperl/ because like most other projects, the convention is to place the website/documentation
beside trunk/ of the project it matches. It's just a convention.
what's the logic behind that convention?
Third, modperl-2.0 was made into modperl/trunk because it was the main development branch. Same reason httpd-2.1 was made
into httpd/trunk
well, 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 are closely related. mp1 and mp2 have next to zero relation to each other. I can't see a good reason why the two should be branches of the same tree.
It should be something like (1):
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl-docs http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl-2.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl-1.0
This sure is one possible layout. It would be quite different from the layout all the other asf projects are under though, and I
for one don't quite see how it improves things. It's different than what we have right now, but I fail to see how it's different
as long as people are handed out SVN Urls to download things from.
It puts all things under one roof, rather then scattering them all over. It's true that it can be all documented, but why making things unintuitive? modperl-docs, modperl-2.0 and modperl-1.0 are 3 unrelated projects and therefore IMHO it's logicall to keep those at the same level.
If we are planning to do a different nesting to accomodate other projects it could be (2):
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl/docs http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl/2.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/modperl/1.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/embperl/1.0 http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/perl/embperl/2.0 ...
Or:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/modperl/trunk/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/modperl/docs/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/modperl/branches/1.x/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/embperl/trunk http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/perl/embperl/branches/1.x/
And IMO, this is an approach that remains closer than the way other project are structured too, like httpd for instance.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/site
If someone can explain to me the reasoning for this layout I will be able to make a better judging. At the moment I find this layout quite unituitive.
In the future for this kind of grand changes please post a plan of things you are going to do *before* doing them.
I absolutely agree on this one, and this is a good example of making a somewhat significant infrastructural change without
enough planning. This has been decided kinda on the spur of the moment at ApacheCon, and I am sure many other projects
are going thru a similarly annoying changing process.
:)
This is a huge change and it already wastes a huge amount of our time :( sorry if it feels like I'm screaming, but I feel very blind at the moment, because I have no idea what's going on.
But, at this point, I think moving forward with subversion is a good idea ;-)
I didn't say I was suggesting to revert back to cvs. It's just that instead finishing off the 2.0 release, which is a way delayed we now have to waste time on this new infrastracture. I've spent hours yesterday trying to get svn and svk compiled correctly, since the binary builds were segfaulting all over. I haven't even had a chance to start learning svn because of that. I'd rather be finishing off mp2 at this moment.
Unfortunately due to Apache-Test we were forced into this unplanned conversion.
We have complete control of the content of [svn]/perl/* and can very easily "svn move" anything to wherever we want. Subversion is different to CVS in many places, and certain paradigms did change, but I think that the important thing at this point, and moving forward, is to discuss the remaining annoyances
left and tackle them on a one to one basis and I am sure we can get back to a nice, stable and comfortable development environment
in no time.
+1
So, in a new thread, I'll start first a conversation on what svn repos structure we want to adopt.
OK
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
