On Jun 27, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi,
I agree that it would be good to separate Planet from roller so
they can be released independently etc.
One thing to consider is to make both Planet and roller sub-
projects explicitly, as in
svn copy <rollersvn>/trunk/apps/planet <rollersvn>/planet/trunk
svn move <rollersvn>/trunk <rollersvn>/core/trunk
Whatever you call roller core, it might be cleaner. No strong
opinion, just other projects seem to have this structure...
yeah, I like that idea too. the name we've been using is
'weblogger', which identifies the blog server part of the project.
i also like the idea of allowing people to commit plugins to the
repository, which he haven't done so far. we tried using java.net
for a plugin repository but i think that's been a failed experiment
and it would be far more ideal to let people maintain their plugins
in apache svn. i think that's easier for everyone and would help
boost participation in the project.
i think we still want to keep the plugin development separate from
the core codebase of the application though, so maybe a structure
like this?
<rollersvn>/weblogger/core/trunk (blog server main codebase)
<rollersvn>/weblogger/plugins/* (where users contribute plugins)
<rollersvn>/planet/core/trunk (aggregation server main codebase)
-- Allen
Speaking as someone pretty new to this list, this gets my thumbs up.
Anything that would make it easier for users to contribute plugins
would be great.
Incubating, experimental plugins perhaps belong in their own repos
(I've used git repos for mine), but once they "graduate", having them
in the main Roller SVN repo would make sense.
Just browsing the CVS code on java.net is *extremely* sluggish!
Alex
