> From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > The third form leads to a flat repository structure, similar to > > that in use by maven (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven) > > >From a browsing perspective, this doesn't scale to large numbers > > of groups (aka products). > > That could be said about anything, at any level. Luckily Apache (this > repository) isn't SourceForge, our product groups/artefacts are within > scale. I think one could argue about almost any arbitrary hierarchy, with > pros and cons. I don't think we should start there phase one. I > say we keep > it simple, and fix it only if we find it broken. >
IIRC, the repository structure used by Maven (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/) has generated much discussion in the past, with the general concensus being that the flat structure: . didn't help artifact categorisation . made it difficult to navigate and locate artifacts It was an excellent first step, but I think it can be done better. I haven't looked at Wagon yet - does it use the existing ibiblio structure? -Tim
