On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > The current SVN layout is a bit unconventional but its been like this > for years now, I don't mind much what happens with the other sub > projects as they don't have many users but there's lots of people who > are used to where the SCA code is who get broken if we move it, so > could we leave those as-is and just add a README at the top level > documenting what all the SVN folders are for? >
Being broken for years it's not a reason not to fix it now. I have gotten feedback from various people that the structure is unconventional and hard to navigate trough. Even I have problems these days trying to find things on the svn. The reorganization would also make more clear what sub-projects are present in Tuscany and would group together all it's related artifacts, branches and tags, making it much easier for new members to find the places that interest them. As for getting it broken, I was planning to send detailed notification to both user and dev list, and post some instructions on the blog on how the changes affects current Tuscany contributors and how they can use svn to redirect their local checkouts to the new code location. Also, from this discussion thread, it looks like the community was getting consensus on what and how to do it... with other members volunteering to help with the efforts. > I'd like to keep the collaboration folder as it will be used at some > point, although i guess it could be moved to be under sandbox or else > just make the sandbox folder the ASF committer wide access folder. > I don't have any hard feelings for it. Either way is fine, I just hoped others would come and use it. > I agree with some of the previous comments about all the contrib > folders being confusing. Could we have just a single contrib folder or > move it all to the sandbox folder? > A single contrib folder would make things more hard to find, how would you differentiate from 1.x to 2.x in teh sca case ? How about other projects like DAS, SDO, etc Also, moving it to sandbox will just make it hard to find to anyone other then the very active community members... adding them together with the active code stream would probably increase the possibility that these contrib projects can come to live again at some point. > We can probably get rid of the STATUS and PROPOSAL.txt file from the > top level folder now. > > We also should look at not requiring the maven repo folder we have in > SVN as these are being actively discouraged now. > How would we go about publishing dependencies that are not available in a public maven repo ? Should we use p.a.o instead of svn ? I believe Raymond and I have tried the maven central in the past without much luck. > ...ant > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
