On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 13:11 -0400, Ernest Allen wrote: > Summary: Are there any problems associated with checking in symlinks? > > Here is the situation: > > qpid-dispatch/ > console/ > stand-alone/ > hawtio/ > > Basically the stand-alone and hawtio versions of the qpid dispatch > router use several of the same (html, js, css) files. > > I see some possibile scenarios: > 1) Store duplicate versions of the files in the stand-alone/ and > hawtio/ directories. > Not ideal from a development/maintenance perspective. > > 2) Store the common files in a qpid-dispatch/console/common/ > directory and use releative references in the stand-alone and hawtio > code. > This prevents a user from copying the stand-alone/ directory into a > web server since they would also need the common/ dir. Also, this > complicates the hawtio pom.xml file greatly since some of the source > would be under hawtio/ and some would be under ../common/. > > 3) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use > relative references in the hawtio build. > This still has the problem of complicating the hawtio build greatly. > > 4) Store the actual files in the stand-alone/ directory and use > symlinks in the hawtio directory. > This solves both problems. Hawtio builds just fine with symlinks and > the stand-alone/ directory can be copied because it actually contains > the files. > > So, is using symlinks in this manner acceptable?
I would say this is OK. I caused trouble before by putting directory symlinks in the root of the repo, but local links like you are propsing that are only seen by console code shouldn't cause trouble (famous last words) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
