Hi Dscho,
> So it's probably better to keep the separate repository, and add a Jenkins > job to compile it after compiling ImageJ, right? If you like that idea, I > will make that job. Sure, for CI I think having a downstream Jenkins job for the tutorials would be great. It does not address your issue of code sharing, but let's reevaluate after doing a bit more work on the tutorials over the next couple of months. I think it will become more clear over time whether merging the repos is a good idea. Regards, Curtis On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Johannes Schindelin < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Curtis, > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Curtis Rueden wrote: > > > > I wonder whether it'd make sense to merge the tutorials into a > > > subdirectory of our main repository? That way, we could share code > > > between tutorials and regression tests more easily... > > > > > > There are pros and cons. The reason I made a separate repository is to > > prove that you do not need to check out the ImageJ2 source code in order > > to easily work with ImageJ2. This more closely models what external > > developers will do: create a new project with dependencies on ImageJ2 > > artifacts and go from there. > > > > That said, I am not necessarily against merging the tutorials back in, > > if it would make our lives a lot easier. Could you give an example of > > such code sharing in action? > > I do not have a real-life example of code sharing except the one I gave, > which is not really code-sharing but code-compiling (to make sure things > work, still). > > So it's probably better to keep the separate repository, and add a Jenkins > job to compile it after compiling ImageJ, right? If you like that idea, I > will make that job. > > Ciao, > Dscho >
_______________________________________________ ImageJ-devel mailing list [email protected] http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
