on 4/12/01 10:25 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One issue may be that each project will include ant, xerces, xalan, etc,
> with the same or slightly different version.
That doesn't really matter and is the projects decision, right?
> One compromise may be to use a separate CVS only for binaries, with the
> latest "released" version of each product.
No.
Say there is a new feature/bugfix in Ant that Turbine *has* to use. Why
limit Turbine development that way?
> Benefits over checking in binaries in all projects:
> - only pristine sources in all projects ( except the binary tree )
> - consistent behavior and location for the binaries for all projects using
> the binary tree
> - less duplication and space ( and download time )
> - Sam may be happy ( as gump could create the binaries instead of checking
> out, so it would be as easy to build with the "latest and greatest" )
> ( it would also be easy for developers to do both types of builds - if the
> location of the "binary" tree is configurable )
> - a simple way to get the latest stable release for all jars ( a cvs
> update will also get only what's changed, instead of requiring to
> download and install x different tar.gz files )
>
> Problems:
> - user has to checkout 2 trees
I have about ~40 trees checked out. A non-issue for developers IMHO.
> - all projects will be forced to use the latest stable release ( but this
> can be a big benefit ! )
-1
> - you may get more binaries than you need for a project
-1. That isn't helping improve the situation.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
