Simon, are you suggesting to cut down a branch prior to doing the build structure modifications and make them on the branch? What's the procedure you are following when doing a release?
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:27 PM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with all those suggestions. > > ...ant > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Florian MOGA <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given the fact that in about one week or so we are about to finish > technical > > tasks like the jsonp binding, the shell, etc. I think it is a good time > to > > do the release but not before we do the distribution cleanup. If we want > to > > improve our release process we'll need a clean, simple and organized > place > > to work. I got lost half way at the discussions regarding the distro but > > from what I've understood we will be able to do the core/base + modules > jars > > which is a great idea. > > Also, I'd like to propose a bit of reorganization in the folder > structure. > > Some observations: > > > > the archetypes and maven folders are confusing. shouldn't archetypes be a > > subdirectory in the maven folder? > > compliance-tests and itest could be subdirectories or a "tests" or > "testing" > > folder > > shades and features can be replaced by a single folder containing the new > > artifacts > > what about the contrib folder? i find it very confusing in trunk... we > also > > have it in sca-java-2.x, in tuscany and a few other places as well > > > > Looking at other open source projects, they've got very few top level > > folders which enables the user to orientate better in the directory > > structure (see the samples). As seen above, we can achieve that as well > > quite easy. Also, this would be a good time to do it if you agree with > the > > above as improving the samples and distro structure already involve > making > > changes in the poms. We'll also have to go through all the samples and > > modules to change the dependencies with the new artifacts so we'll be > going > > through the directory structure at the same time. If we don't do it now, > it > > will be a long time since somebody will be up to going through the whole > > structure and update things. Also, it is a good reason doing it for the > 2.0 > > release. It will take a bit of time but I think it's well worthed. Having > > clean directory, samples and distro structure will enable us doing more > > regular releases. > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:29 AM, ant elder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Simon Laws < > [email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> How about we start to making progress on the Beta release again... > >> >> > >> >> Things are looking ok I believe from an otest point of view. > >> >> We've had discussion about the samples and that looks to be shaping > up. > >> >> We've also had disscussion about the distro structure and there are > >> >> lots of ideas. I think we need a release to review and to focus the > >> >> mind. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Big +1 from me, it would be great to get a release done and then get > >> > into the habit again of much more regular releases. > >> > > >> > ...ant > >> > > >> > >> Yep agreed. Needs to be a straightforward process. I think quite a bit > >> of the pain has been taken out with some of the automation and testing > >> that's in 2.x now. > >> > >> Re. the beta release. I suggest we cut the branch again rather than > >> trying to use the existing one. There is though quite a bit of tidying > >> we can do in trunk, e.g. there was more sample name tidying suggested > >> and we need to tidy the sample poms and build.xml files and make sure > >> classes and wars etc are excluded. How about we cut the branch > >> tomorrow or Monday? > >> > >> Simon > >> > >> -- > >> Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > >> Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com > > > > >
