> From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> > The third form leads to a flat repository structure, similar to
> > that in use by maven (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven)
> > >From a browsing perspective, this doesn't scale to large numbers
> > of groups (aka products).
>
> That could be said about anything, at any level. Luckily Apache (this
> repository) isn't SourceForge, our product groups/artefacts are within
> scale. I think one could argue about almost any arbitrary hierarchy, with
> pros and cons. I don't think we should start there phase one. I
> say we keep
> it simple, and fix it only if we find it broken.
>

IIRC, the repository structure used by Maven (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/)
has generated much discussion in the past, with the
general concensus being that the flat structure:
. didn't help artifact categorisation
. made it difficult to navigate and locate artifacts

It was an excellent first step, but I think it can be done
better.

I haven't looked at Wagon yet - does it use the existing ibiblio
structure?

-Tim


Reply via email to