Stefano, Some afterthoughts. Hopefully to help clarify. The scope of a "Project" in our system (currently) is that of a build (a series of builds) for a given instance of (1) product-release on a given (2) target. This of course means that a single configuration for a given instance of #1 would then "fan out" to several "Projects" (as we have used this word).
I am not completely happy with this arrangement, since our "Project" does not distinguish between: (a) separate configurations, or (b) the same configurations build on different targets. And somehow I think this distinction should be more clearly represented in the data model. I think if (1) were to be defined as the "Project" and the (2)'s under it would be "SubProject" (to use some names), and keep the arbitrary grouping mechanism, though now at the SubProject level, then I think we've gained something w/o any other feature loss. wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/13/2004 09:07:32 AM: > Stefano: > > See my responses below. > > > [...]
