> > Done:http://cvs.apache.org/~ajack/repository/proposals/
>
> I think of the group, I like repositoryFQDN/ best.
For me, it is between that and group (oh yeah, I asked for that one. ;-)
'cos they are both of deterministic directory depth/layout.
[BTW: If things get 'overloaded' we can do
> Done:http://cvs.apache.org/~ajack/repository/proposals/
I think of the group, I like repositoryFQDN/ best.
--- Noel
> 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
Folk have resolved
> 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 sai
> If someone with a public webspace can extract them both (Adam?),
> that would be great.
Done:http://cvs.apache.org/~ajack/repository/proposals/
regards
Adam
> 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)
> From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 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/apache
> From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Is there any consensus out there that the
> > repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?
>
[snip]
>
> I would like to change the name of product-specified (back?) to
> 'group-specifier'. I think that concepts like 'sub-project
> 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
Anou Manavalan wrote:
Thinking about the sub project hierarchies, like lets say 'Depot' goes
under Jakarta and it has its own sub projects like 'Ruper' and
'Version' then the repository in the form[1] will have problems
accomadating them.
http://repo.apache.org/org.apache.jakarta/depot-ruper
An
0 or more
regards,
-Anou
From: "Tim Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anywhere near concensus?
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:42:35 +1100
Is there any concensus out there that the
repository URI proposals are the right/
Is there any concensus out there that the
repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?
The only sticking point I'm aware of at the moment, is
the product-specifier part of the URI, i.e,
repository-uri = access-specifier "/" product-specifier "/"
version-specifie
12 matches
Mail list logo
