On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Robert Munteanu <romb...@apache.org> wrote: > 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.
+1 regards, Karl > Robert -- Karl Pauls karlpa...@gmail.com
