On Jan 4, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Dan Creswell wrote:
Mark Brouwer wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I think that it's something that doesn't need to be decided up
front -
it's something that can evolve as the community does.
While I understand it is quite easy to move things around in the
repository, it is always troubles for those working on the
project. So a
little bit of thinking up front won't do any harm.
Agreed but do you not feel like we're still guessing for the most
part?
Especially as we haven't got much in the way of feedback from the
community to give us a hint as to how they might want things done?
At least I can identify ServiceUI and the JTSK as completely
independent
and maybe also the QA test framework. We have to make a decision
either
way so I'm in favor of:
Given that these are well isolated packages anyways, I'm not as yet
sure
why giving them all a separate trunk helps us much at this stage. I'd
want to figure out what the interface dependencies etc are between
these
things first at least.
/river/jtsk/trunk
/river/qatest/trunk [a bit less sure about this one]
/river/serviceui/trunk
/river/site/
+0. Thanks for making a proposal Mark. I guess I don't see a
compelling reason either way. FWIW, the separations you called out
certainly reflect the current separation of these items. Most of my
past experience (before leaving the Jini team at Sun) was with qatest
and the LDJ (formerly the TCK). These are large custom frameworks
that were always considered separate from the starter kit.
nige
