On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:15 -0400, Justin Ross wrote: > > > > > Agreed. I think theyd only want to have qpid- if they were in git, > > > like qpid-proton and qpid-jms. > > > > > > The existing second qpid dir will go away with these changes either > > > way though since it is within the trunk dir currently, and these > > > proposed new dirs would contain the trunk etc. > > > > IMO there should NEVER be qpid- prefixes on anything in the qpid repo, > > regardless of whether we get rid of the useless top-level qpid directory > > or whether we it all to git > > > > Anybody who checks out the qpid repo *knows* they have checked out the > > qpid repo, there's no need to embed a reminder in every directory name > > in the repo that yes, this is indeed a checkout of the qpid repo. > > > As far as subversion goes, the proposal doesn't include any extra qpids. > It's all > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/$module/{trunk,branches,tags} > > where module is cpp, java, dispatch, etc. > > I think Robbie's right about including qpid in the git repo name. That > helps to clarify what you're getting, particularly for components with > generic names such as jms. > > When it comes to git, there is no "the qpid repo" (as in, "anyone who > checks out the qpid repo"). Since each module is a top-level entity, I > think they need the association.
That makes sense. As long as there's just one "qpid" at the top level and we don't keep stuttering it all the way down. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
