On 22.11.2013 11:10, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote: > I'm planning on moving uimaFIT one up. > > @Peter: Will you do the same for Ruta?
Yes, I would do that if nobody objects ;-) The ruta code is not as clean as uimaFIT, but the project is maybe stable enough to leave the sandbox. Peter > 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
