On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 11:53, Scott M Stark wrote: > So you are arguing that there should be seperate a source tree for a > given project, and seperate soruce trees for any integration which I am > in agreement with. What is not clear is where the source lives. It could > be a seperate cvs module from either the integrator and integratee, or > it could be in either the integrator or integratee modules. Its just a > question of should there be meaning to the structure of the cvs modules.
Yes, that is pretty much what I'm arguing. But more fundamentally I am saying my arguments mean nothing until we have actually tried these different options and worked out what the consequences are. Currently people are going ahead with whatever somebody thinks might be a good idea, without a proper definition of the requirements or validation that it can be made to work. This is made even worse as people pre-empt the support for properly mangaging these integrations, doing things in their own different ways and with no support from the build to help figure out what is going on. If we are not careful, we are going to need a "Rollback to 3.2" again, so we can rebuild the project into something that makes sense once we have figured out what does actually work. -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Adrian Brock Chief Scientist JBoss Inc. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
