How about we get a discussion going, and discuss the following items : - Does the structure makes sense ? What are the benefits ? - Should we use this structure in Tuscany ? - Should we move other projects (DAS, SDO, Native/CPP) to the same structure ?
Thoughts ? On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:17 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> One more question: >> >> The "maven-plugins" is now at top level instead of "java" and it has its >> own trunk/tags/branches. This is not consistent with what we have for the >> sdo/das/sca structure. At this moment, the java implementations of >> sdo/das/sca are all under "java" (trunk) and the tags/branches have separate >> folders for the subprojects. Should we stick with that? If so, the structure >> will be: >> >> tuscany/java/maven-plugins/maven-eclipse-compiler (I think the >> maven-plugins are for java too) >> tuscany/branches/maven-plugins/maven-eclipse-compiler-1.0 >> tuscany/tags/maven-plugins/maven-eclipse-compiler-1.0 > > Actually even that isn't quite consistent with how the tags and branches are > used today - it would be tuscany/branches/maven-eclipse-compiler-1.0 and > tuscany/tags/java/maven-eclipse-compiler-1.0. However, AFICT the current > structure of tuscany/java, tuscany/branches, and tuscany/tags was, well, a > mistake, done before we understood the normal conventions. So as this was > new i picked the way which seemed more consistent with how most other > projects do this. If you feel strongly about this though i really don't > mind, to communicate that how about voting over on the vote thread with a > conditional vote? > > ...ant > > > > > > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
