Who are the people that blindly check out our source code without reading
our web sites or mailing list? Do we reference the svn directories in our
releases?
If people find a svn directory doesn't exist any more, they can just simply
do one of the following:
1) Check our web site (We should add a "Source Code" to left panel on our
home page)
2) Browse http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany (The proposed new
subfolders are self-explanatory).
3) Ask on the Tuscany dev or user ML
If we like the new structure technically, let's do it. +1 from me.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:09 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Luciano Resende <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
Its not broken, what we have works. If we move the SCA locations we
will break people. Emailing the mailing lists wont change that as not
everyone reads the lists regularly and IIRC when moving from the
incubator svn the svn redirects didn't work well.
We could simplify the current layout a bit by tidying
up/rearranging/deleting some files and folders and that would be good
to do. But some things such as the tags we can't move without breaking
lots of historical links in documentation emails, articles etc.
How about starting with small steps by tidying up the easy things
first which we can change without breaking anything and seeing what
sort of improvement that gives?
...ant
