The second two sound a bit narrow, but if the idea is to create further repos if another "use case" for tamaya comes up with stable enough modules, I guess it should work. If everything other than "sandbox" was "extensions", I am not sure, if two make sense or one could not be easier (and divide inside the repo into "types-format", "integration" or other)
Especially since "sandbox" as "incubator inside the incubator" may contain all sorts of sanbox modules, so IMHO if we separate for one and not the other, it sounds a bit inconsistent. WDYT? On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Oliver B. Fischer <[email protected] > wrote: > So, if no one objects until Monday evening we will have to following three > repos.(?) > > - tamaya-sandbox > - tamaya-types-format-extensions > - tamaya-integration-extensions > > Correct? > > > Am 10.09.16 um 16:11 schrieb Werner Keil: > >> Or better in "each of these repos";-) >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> What for, "modules" vs. "integration" e.g. for things like consule, etcd, >>> etc. or how would they be told apart? >>> If "modules" and "sandbox" already exist, I guess we can also find a >>> logical structure for POMs in one repo, so I'm open here. >>> >>> Werner >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Oliver B. Fischer < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > -- > N Oliver B. Fischer > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany > P +49 30 44793251 > M +49 178 7903538 > E [email protected] > S oliver.b.fischer > J [email protected] > X http://xing.to/obf > >
