On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Glen Mazza <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dave, no problem with separating out planet, but adding planet-web just > adds 5 seconds to the build time (roughly 2% longer), at least on my > machine, and is good for others looking at the code and for letting us know > if/when a planet-web dependency has fallen out of date and is no longer > available, so I'd like to reactivate it for the time being: Those are good points. I'm +0 on keeping the Planet Webapp in the build process. > But I noticed we have a more fundamental problem--we're presently > maintaining two sources of record for the planet source code, something I'd > like to rectify ASAP if I can: > 1.) > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**roller/planet/core/trunk/<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/roller/planet/core/trunk/>(Ant-based > Planet) > > 2.) > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**roller/trunk/<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/roller/trunk/>(Maven-based > Planet) > > It seems that when #1 was done the source code wasn't deleted in #2; OTOH, > if #2 was based on #1 I think I can go ahead and delete #1 to solve the > multiple source problem; later, we'll just need to move planet-web and > planet-business (and a new pom.xml) to #1's location and then we'll have > two separate web apps. (We might keep planet-business in its present > location for a longer term due to it being a dependency for Roller right > now.) > Yuck. I did not remember that little mess. > So I'd like to: > 1.) Reactivate planet-web in the pom.xml > 2.) Delete the source code in #1 (svn delete) so we're at one source of > record. > 3.) (at a later date) Move planet-web to 1's location, with a new pom.xml > and a dependency on planet-business (and possibly test-utils) in Roller. > 4.) (if I can sever the planet-business dependency from Roller), move > planet-business there too. > That all sounds good to me. - Dave
