I was quite surprised by how things are organized when attempting to map
the SVN to git repositories. I would suggest to at least not have nested
repositories, so if you want to have sandbox/ruta, sandbox/uimafit,
etc., I would avoid to also have a trunk/branches/tags structure
directly in sandbox.
I am also particularly confused by things such as
uima-as/depend-on-parent-pom-4, which is not a branch, not a tag, but
also isn't a separate repository with its own trunk/branches/tags
structure like ruta or uimafit. I'm guessing that it should be a branch
of uima-as, but it isn't.
Consistently adhering to the standard structure would make it clearer
that this is (probably) just a mistake, rather than some quirky layout
decision.
I'm putting asking for the git mirror on hold until there's some
decision regarding the SVN layout (I don't care much about the result of
that decision, just that there is one).
-- Jens
On 11/19/2013 10:52 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if the current layout of the SVN makes sense as is,
in particular with respect to the sandbox and addons.
The addons and sandbox have always been released en-bloc.
Now we have Ruta, uimaFIT and DUCC, which all have their
own release cycles. However, they are still in sandbox and
break the "default SVN layout" with branches, tags, and
trunk there.
I believe there were also considerations of giving other
modules, e.g. every single add-ons module, its own release cycle.
I think that Ruta, uimaFIT and DUCC should be moved to the same
level as uimaj, uimacpp, and uima-as.
Any opinions?
Cheers,
-- Richard
