On 8/19/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote: > > A few questions. > > > > [snip] > > ant elder wrote: > > > >> I'm not very keen at all on doing that. Couldn't we actually put the > >> code in > >> our svn instead of using SVN externals (if necessary the Geronimo > >> guys could > >> use SVN externals if they really want it). > > > > Necessary yes, as far as I know the Geronimo guys are the guys working > > on this code. > > > > But will that work if the code moves to our SVN, will they still be > > able to commit their changes? Can you help me understand how that will > > work? > > > >> I'd quite like this code in our > >> svn anyway as some of it could be shared by others who're also > >> integrating > >> Tuscany. > >> > > > > I'm not sure I understand. What exactly will prevent others who are > > also integrating with Tuscany to share this code if it stays where it > > is now in the Geronimo SVN repository? > > > > I'd like to spend a little bit of time today to get the > Geronimo/Integration code building as part of the Tuscany build, get it > into our Eclipse build profile to generate the correct classpath > declarations, and add an itest for this integration. > > We have discussed two options for having this code built in Tuscany so > far: > [a] keep the integration code in the Geronimo repository, have Tuscany > point to it using SVN externals > [b] move the integration code to the Tuscany repository and have the > Geronimo folks point to it using SVN externals if they want > > I prefer [a] for now, as it allows me to build this code in Tuscany, > while continuing to allow the Geronimo folks to work on it without > breaking them. > > Ant has raised concerns with [a]. I have raised questions and concerns > with [b], but I may very well be convinced that [b] is better... if I > get answers to the questions I asked, and if the Geronimo folks working > on this integration are OK with [b] as well. > > Could people please jump in and describe what will work best for them, > I'd like to make progress on this. Thanks.
-1 to [a] We should not have code part of the Tuscany build that Tuscany committers cannot update. Either add it directly into the Tuscany SVN and make the Geronimo guys committers once they've submitted a few patches, or keep it separate and if we really must add some itest to Tuscany that depend on published snapshots of the Geronimo sandbox code. Right now the code is just in a sandbox, it would be good to get this part of a real release. Looks like its missed Geronimo 2.0 so I'm a big +1 on committing this to Tuscany so we can say we've Geronimo integration as part of our 1.0 release. ...ant
