On Nov 4, 2014 5:25 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> wrote: > > It looks good. I thinking it's the right logic for separating out the pieces we want independently releasable. > > -Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 3:22 PM > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: AW: How to manage flex-utilities git repo > > Infra wrote back. They want us to dictate a repo set and they’ll try to > make it happen. > > Here’s the proposal: > > I would argue that we should leave the following in flex-utilities. I > guess it sort of means that flex-utilities is for code that we don't have > release plans for, but help us do other things like modify FXG files, or > check MD5s. If we end up wanting to release something in flex-utilities, > hopefully we can later move it to its own repo without losing history. > > ApacheFXG > FXGTools > MD5Checker > MobileTrader > CodeCoverage > > > > Then we should create more repos with the top-level folders as follows: > > flex-installer.git: > ant_on_air > Common > Installer > installerBadge > installerLocaleEditor > > flex-maven.git: > Maven-flex-plugin > Mavenizer > > flex-squiggly.git > Squiggly > > flex-pmd.git > FlexPMD > > flex-tdf.git > TourDeFlex >
We agreed a while ago to move TDF to the flex-examples repo. I still think that is the best place for TDF. Thanks, Om > > Thoughts? > -Alex >
