+1 on removing it.
+1 on bill's comments.
based on some previous threads, it almost seems like we need an
additional svn space outside of the sandbox that is more like a uportal
framework plug-ins or add-ons space.
William G. Thompson, Jr. wrote:
I think the approach is a good one, although I wonder if it would keep
these a bit clearer to put the ALM code into module tree distinct from
sandbox so as to keep the meaning of the sandbox "experimental, not in
production, code base" clear.
On 9/28/07, Eric Dalquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In the code cleanup effort outlined for the uP3 community roadmap I've
been removing chunks of deprecated code where prudent and doing other
minor tweaking. Some that was talked about in-depth at the conference
but not as much on this list is what to do with the ALM code. The plan I
had worked out with several folks was to pull the ALM/integrated modes
code out into a sandboxed project in SVN.
The goal of this is that we do not want new installs using ALM and we
don't have plans to continue to maintain that code. That said moving the
code into the sandbox allows someone else to step up at a later date and
apply ALM patches and actually use the code in uPortal 3. The sandboxed
project is designed to be an overlay of the uPortal 3 code, if there is
interest in actually making sure that overlay is functional as we move
forward I'm sure we could tweak the Maven build for the ALM project to
automate that processes.
These changes have already been made but it doesn't me they can't be
rolled back or have a different strategy taken.
-Eric
ALM Move: http://www.ja-sig.org/issues/browse/UP-1835
Code Cleanup: http://www.ja-sig.org/issues/browse/UP-1832
--
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
