On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 11:11 +0200, Oliver Lietz wrote: > On Tuesday 10 October 2017 11:39:11 Robert Munteanu wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 09:53 +0200, Oliver Lietz wrote: > > > On Monday 09 October 2017 21:57:34 Robert Munteanu wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Given that we're going to have a single samples repository, > > > > would > > > > it > > > > make sense to move the modules from under testing/samples under > > > > samples/testing? > > > > > > > > testing/samples/ > > > > > > > > > -- bundle-with-it > > > > > > > > `-- module-with-it > > > > > > > > I would also rename the artifact ids from > > > > org.apache.sling.testing.samples.FOO to > > > > org.apache.sling.samples.testing.FOO . > > > > > > can we agree on common group id and package name for samples – at > > > least for > > > unreleased and new samples? > > > > I would suggest org.apache.sling.samples . We can also use > > org.apache.sling.samples.testing for testing samples, but that's > > optional for me, we can stick with one group id. > > +1 > > > > Btw, why do we not create one repo per sample? > > > > As noted at [1]: "having samples spread over multiple repositories > > will > > make it harder for users to discover all of them" > > I see – thanks, Robert (would have added a reactor and repo manifest > for > samples instead).
The reasoning was be to not ask casual contributors to set up repo - just check out the samples repo and be done with it. Since we rarely ever release samples, multiple projects in one repo for this particular case seems fine. Robert
