> We can have a separate CVS for multiple 'mini-projects', and one is for
> Agora [ a big 'add-everyone-in-jakarta' free-for-all incubator], one for
> Directory, and one is for the DBConnectionPool with it's committers, and
> one for XML config, one for ...
>
> I just don't understand why it's all or nothing.
It's not all or nothing - but creating a CVS tree for 5 classes is a bit
too much. Most components will be reasonably small.
If a component is very big we can discuss having a separate tree.
> Has it ever been a problem where someone with something to add to a
> project wasn't able to participate?
No, it's not about that - it's about the overhead of having to deal with
multiple trees.
The ideal solution for me would be to have only 2 trees to worry about -
the library CVS and tomcat CVS.
> Why? Then the whole purpose of productized, independant components goes
> out the window - it would be just like we have now - a seething mass of
> stuff that no one can dig out and use independant of the owning project.
> (Yes, a gross generalization, but right more often than not...)
Or the reverse is true - we end up with a mass of CVS trees, each with 10
files, some active and some not.
> Because taglibs is a set of related items. Whats related about a DB
> Connection Pool and a Testing Suite?
Both are part of the commons, general purpose software.
> Why don't you do it in the Tomcat project then? Version issue? :)
I'm trying to - but it's taking time. Catalina started this way, and I
can see the benefits. Same for taglibs.
( i.e. create directories in the top level for each functional component )
Costin
