Yeah - and backporting atomic commits across multiple modules could get hairy too :)
On 7/27/06, Sanjiv Jivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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/ >
-- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
