Yeah, I agree with your reasoning. Also a separate trunk per module also makes it more work to have maven work with defaults and even checked in IDEA project files will also break when, say, we're working with a trunk module and another branch module.
On 7/27/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good question. Given how interdependent many of the modules are, its failrly unlikely we'd want to branch only one of the modules I guess. Its certainly much simpler to branch the entire maven build in one go, then you can for example change the super-pom in the branch. On 7/27/06, Sanjiv Jivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Off topic, but in looking at the Active MQ SVN directory structure with the > multiple modules and all, I was wondering what the pro's on con's are in > 1) using one top level "trunk" and "branch" directory with all the modules > going under "trunk" versus > 2) having each module have its own "trunk" and "branck" sub directory as > described here : > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.branchmerge.using > > What criteria did Active MQ use to go with approach 1). Was it because the > maven directory layout is an issue with approach 2? > > Thanks, > Sanjiv > > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
