Clay Leeds wrote:

> Does it make sense for xml-fop dev'ers to standardize on a particular
> directory structure for CVS? It seems that this problem might have been
> averted had Glen used what I was the standard directory structure for
> xml-fop development: for development purposes it is best if xml-fop builds
> be built from under the xml-fop/ directory. If so, some sort of "standard"
> directory structure might be a good addition to the Fop-Dev FAQ.
> DISCLAIMER: If this doesn't make sense (me being something of a
> CVS-newbie), please disregard. I'm not trying to be picky here, just
> hoping to learn whether this thought process might improve efficiency for
> [PATCH] submissions. ;-)

I think most developers probably do check out the entire xml-fop module. The
fact that someone does not *probably* means that they have a good reason for
doing it differently. IMO, this is one of those things that, while perhaps
nominally helpful, would actually be counter-productive because of the
confusion it would add.

Victor Mote

Reply via email to