On 13 Dec 2004, at 22:20, Richard Bair wrote:
Thanks everyone for your insight!
Related to this, I have a question regarding the organizational structure of CVS. I noticed that cvs.apache.org has, predictably, a different package for all of the top-level projects, and even sub-projects (although all of the commons-components are considered components and not sub-projects, hence the lack of any of the components at this top level). I also noticed that each of the websites is listed as [projectname]-site.
I'm certainly not the worlds foremost expert at CVS, so I naturally assume that since apache is laid out this way that this must a great way to lay out a project & its sub-projects in CVS. Is this so? What are the pros/cons to doing it this way, as opposed to a true tree structure? I assume it has something to do with the way CVS does things.
(though it is the conventional way to lay out CVS projects) i suspect that this organization grew rather than being planned. (though it may well be easier to manage permissions with this structure.)
we're moving to subversion and there have been quite a few discussions about the best ways of laying our repositories recently. if you can use subversion, seriously consider using it. the way our subversion repository is laid out is a little different.
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
