I'm planning on moving uimaFIT one up. @Peter: Will you do the same for Ruta?
Even though DUCC is not yet released and stable, I'd vote for moving that up as well. I do not think that there is much of a risk that DUCC will be stuck in a low-quality sandbox level. I believe these actions do not require a formal vote, do they? -- Richard On 22.11.2013, at 10:37, Jens Grivolla <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
