On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:39 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
2009/9/22 Jack Cai <greensi...@gmail.com>
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?
So, if I update one vendor and change its version, I should update
all the vendors' version?
Since the vendor wrappers are not built together, there is no need for
them to have the same version.
I was actually thinking further of:
- combining connector and connector-ra into a folder, perhaps "generic"
- removing the "vendors" folder and having generic, derby, db2,
postgres,.... next to one another.
But even if we keep the vendors folder the versions don't have to be
related.
thanks
david jencks
-Rex
-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
