james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: All clear
Date Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:29:34 GMT
I agree on mime4j, server, jsieve, postage, jspf needing a ttb structure 
as they follow totally separate workflows, they use different build 
mechanisms and they are standalone libraries/products.

I think Robert proposed to change only the server folder to split its 
content into multiple subprojects.

The current move from trunk to trunk/phoenix-deployment (if I understood 
him correctly) is only a temporary move: in the end we'll have something 
similar to:

server/trunk/build.xml (to build server and all its modules)

This is only a subset of a possible final solution. In the old threads 
you can find a list of modules we discussed about.

Robert probably made a copy&paste to wiki: 


Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
>>> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/ has been moved to
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/pheonix-deployment/
>>> HUH?!  If it is trunk it should be called trunk.  If it is some branch it
>>> does NOT belong under trunk.  The SVN conventions are trunk, tags and
>>> branches.  trunk is just that, and nothing else.
>> I think that this is almost standard for multimodule/granular projects.
>> This is a list of ASF projects I know follows the same approach:
>> activemq, cayenne, cocoon, apacheds, geronimo, mina, maven-archiva,
>> continuum, maven-components, jackrabbit...
> I'd have to review each to see what each is actually doing.  A various
> points in time, some projects had totally screwed up SVN structure.  But to
> focus on the real issue ...
>> Are you proposing to have a trunk/branches/tags structure for each
>> submodule? I'm against this, but I'm open to discussion or to a vote.
> It is very simple.  If something is a separately releasable/versionable
> component, it gets a {ttb} structure.  Else it does not.
> Having something like:
>   trunk/
>       mime4j/
>       server/
>       jsieve/
>       ...
> is the WRONG approach.  The right approach is what we are supposed to have:
>    mime4/{ttb}
>    server/{ttb}
>    jsieve/{ttb}
>    ...
> My objection is that Robert introduced a level under trunk and at least
> temporarily required that people switch to checking out that new level as
> trunk.
> 	--- Noel

To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message