I think it's a good idea. A small problem that I see is currently all the vendor connectors have different version numbers. If we are going to put them under the same folder, shall we bump them to the same version?
-Jack On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:41 AM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>wrote: > I've been irked for a while with the tranql svn organization and just bit > myself by not being careful enough to check the extent of the changes IDEA > made. I'd like to reorganize svn to make life clearer and simpler. > > 1. There are basically 2 projects, the query language itself which is not > really under active development at the moment, and the j2ca connector > framework which occasionally gets tweaked. I'd like to separate them. > > 2. We have a lot of foo/bar/trunk type directories. Our experience in the > geronimo specs projects is that maven 2 has no problem with separately > versioned subprojects all under trunk. > > So, I'd like to propose > > ql/ > +/branches > +/tags > +/trunk > > ra/ > +/branches > +/tags > +/trunk > > > Under ra/trunk we'd have connector, connector-ra, and the individual vendor > directories such as derby, oracle, etc. > > Thoughts? In particular does anyone think moving the existing tags will > cause problems? > > thanks > david jencks > >
