This is what I meant by "top-level"
Something like:
geronimo/
devtools/
daytrader/
transaction/
connector/
server/
xbean/
plugins/
Then have branch, tags and trunk under them. I think this makes a lot of sense.
Jason Dillon wrote:
Before we start moving components into separate trees, I hope we can
think ahead a bit and consider a plan for how to organize chunks of
components into a small set of trees. I think that if we just pluck
them off one by one as peers to trunk that we will end up with a messy
svn repo. I'd like to see those components organized into categories
within our repo.
I'd also like to eventually do away with the top-level /trunk, /tags and
/branches... and instead move that into a top-level tree... very similar
to how the maven repo is:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/
--jason
On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I can see the difficulty pointed out by Jason and the benefit raised
by Dain. I've never liked versioning parts of Geronimo that rarely
change and am all for making things more consumable externally.
The proposal as it stands is fairly generic. Is the idea to relocate
Tx Manager and Connector to be top-level projects withing Geronimo and
build separately or some kind of hybrid in the current tree. If we
are going to release them independently then I think they should be
top-level in Geronimo (and I know thats a lot more work).
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
What do everyone think about changing the transaction and connector
modules to be versioned independently of the main Geronimo server?
-dain
