> Is there any consensus out there that the > repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?
I have to believe it is close. I think folks need to add any issues they have here to TODOs http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/ToDo If we can't agree on some we need to vote, I guess. We need to set a deadline, get agreement (or what we can all live with) and move on. Q: I missed a conclusion, did 'binaries'/'binary' get decided? > The only sticking point I'm aware of at the moment, is > the product-specifier part of the URI, i.e, I hate to set this backwards, I know folks have been trying to whittle things down to a conclusion, but I think that has failed so far. I would like to change the name of product-specified (back?) to 'group-specifier'. I think that concepts like 'sub-project' are totally orthogonal to a artefacts repository, and how folks structure things like that is not something we ought attempt to replicate. There are other groupings we aren't allowing in, so why allow this one? I think that 'group' becomes a namespace, and that products within that group (e.g. sub-projects) can't uniquely name their artefacts with the group. That is all we need. Anything else is distraction/overkill. As such, I'd say group-specifier=pchar* (i.e. no '/' in there, so it is parsable.) > I'm attaching a sample repository structure for [1]. > A sample for [2] can be found here: > > http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&ms > gNo=490 > > If someone with a public webspace can extract them both (Adam?), > that would be great. I'll read & try to find time today. regards, Adam
