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 > > -- William G. Thompson, Jr. Associate Director - Architecture & Engineering Enterprise Systems and Services, Rutgers University voice: 732 445-5428 | fax: 732 445-5493 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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
