Raphaël Luta wrote:
David Sean Taylor wrote:
Raphaël Luta wrote:
What about simply moving the applications code to a different SVN branch,
so that core and apps are checked out separately.
<snip opion 1 & 2>
/portals/components/ -> core portal components
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/applications/ -> useful apps
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/demos/ -> demo stuff
/trunk
/branches
/tags
/portals/jetspeed-2 -> full jetspeed 2 portal
/trunk
svn:externals components /portals/components/trunk
svn:externals applications /portals/applications/trunk
svn:externals bridges /portals/bridges/trunk
svn:externals demos /portals/demos/trunk
(ie manage everything in separate hierarchies and tie everything under
jetspeed-2 using svn externals property)
+1
Should a propose a formal vote on this reorg?
Before a full blown proposal suitable for a vote I think there are quite
a few detaiuls to work out, like:
- making sure the svn:externals actually work as expected in the ASF setup
Question: how are we going to provide specific tags and/or branches for
jetspeed-2
with such "trunk" links inside a tree?
I'm no svn guru, but it seems like that won't be a simple svn copy action then
anymore.
- which mailing list(s) gets commits messages for the various directories
- getting some input from other stakeholders like Pluto guys or Cocoon
portal guys (possibly Geronimo) about the optimal directory breakdown
+1
I don't want to restart the discussion we had about this subject last month on
the general@ list, but I'd like to see a more architectural discussion first
which
components are to be considered not j2-specific or portals generic before we
start moving things around.
- figure out a build system that actually works on such a beast
I definitely would like to see it working first!
Maybe we can create something like a "/reorg-test" branch copied from our
/portals root
to test these things out?
<snip/>
Also remember that we have an installer now, and Ate is working on
enhancements to that
After being offline for a considerable time I'm going to look into the
installer again
starting tomorrow.
I already have several changes and fixes locally which involves moving back to
the izPack
installer (now fully ASF 2.0 compliant).
I found ant-installer immature and not comparable feature-wise with izPack by
far.
Cool, I will have to try it one of these days... :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
