You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com> on 2004/08/20 18:52:20 UTC
[VOTE] on repository layout
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The import of the derby code is looming; it would be nice to have a
decision about the repository structure. So let's measure consensus the
Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can collate the results
next Monday (8/23); our community is still small enough that we don't
need to wait a long time to close the vote.
[ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
[ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBJixEIv0S4qsbfuQRAsLgAKCPsTWhm56KzE3/szQEJOZsyHPeXQCgvNaG
xO8CocfgPoo0i3i+Azdwbc4=
=U+Z1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
My vote.
| [X] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
| trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
| derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
|
| [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
| ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBKfskIv0S4qsbfuQRAkFhAKDGdpZlBunN+/QQuisOjTxWDW+m1ACg2Ftc
7R4siUts+DyfYm2LhhywPIc=
=LqTM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Mike Matrigali <mi...@sbcglobal.net>.
I hope going forward to see stable and development branches for the
code, and it
seems less confusing to separate out the stuff that need not be branched
with the code.
I vote for option 1
Mike Matrigali
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The import of the derby code is looming; it would be nice to have a
> decision about the repository structure. So let's measure consensus the
> Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can collate the results
> next Monday (8/23); our community is still small enough that we don't
> need to wait a long time to close the vote.
>
> [ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
> trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
> derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
>
> [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
> ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
>
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBJixEIv0S4qsbfuQRAsLgAKCPsTWhm56KzE3/szQEJOZsyHPeXQCgvNaG
> xO8CocfgPoo0i3i+Azdwbc4=
> =U+Z1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Cloudscape Testing wrote:
>
> That means though, that I would include the user documentation in the
> code part of the repository, since we would want to keep that in sync
> with the code that it documents. The developer would also then have the
> current doc set in their build tree for reference, and a person could
> build a full binary distribution from the source distribution.
as only a mentor for the derby podling, i don't feel qualified to have
a vote on this issue. however, i'd like to suggest that *if* the decision
is to keep the docco and the code separate, then developers who are
keeping up with the bleeding edge of svn aren't forced to have it, and
it can always be included in any release tarballs when they're built.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQSntYprNPMCpn3XdAQFVJwP9G0vrFuz4tStvipZJocEYQ/a9wOmQvq5u
FQf5ZKB9nnvPDYfi2Wkspq19tCXkO56UAazeJ1K9nOIEW0HAhT6dRt1dv1BMWROY
Cuv3ErHPvG3Q8XFhaCfPr7BWv1TPdGJck7MgrIsS6gaJhpBorZlowrVTzTsvPAQA
fBWMJjUukAo=
=6Vhw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: testing - pls ignore
Posted by Suresh Thalamati <ts...@Source-Zone.org>.
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> One more time, to confirm that I have finally beat my mail program
> into submission.
>
u did.
testing - pls ignore
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <fu...@nonintuitive.com>.
One more time, to confirm that I have finally beat my mail program into
submission.
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Cloudscape Testing <fu...@nonintuitive.com>.
Looks like my mail program decided to reset my username for me.
Hopefully this will go through as Andrew McIntyre instead of Cloudscape
Testing. :)
I vote for option 1, because I would think that a developer who is
checking out the code from svn should be able to check out one
directory (in this case, derby/code) and get everything necessary to
build a binary distribution and nothing more.
That means though, that I would include the user documentation in the
code part of the repository, since we would want to keep that in sync
with the code that it documents. The developer would also then have the
current doc set in their build tree for reference, and a person could
build a full binary distribution from the source distribution.
Are there source files for the docs, which are then generated by
forrest? If so, I would think the repository would look something like:
derby/code {trunk/branches/tags}
- derby code
- derby tests
- compiled user documentation
derby/site {trunk/branches/tags}
- website pages
- source for derby documentatio
- derby technical papers
my .02$,
andrew
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Satheesh Bandaram <sa...@sourcery.org>.
I like the option 1 too, if I am not too late to VOTE.
Satheesh
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The import of the derby code is looming; it would be nice to have a
> decision about the repository structure. So let's measure consensus the
> Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can collate the results
> next Monday (8/23); our community is still small enough that we don't
> need to wait a long time to close the vote.
>
> [ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
> trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
> derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
>
> [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
> ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBJixEIv0S4qsbfuQRAsLgAKCPsTWhm56KzE3/szQEJOZsyHPeXQCgvNaG
> xO8CocfgPoo0i3i+Azdwbc4=
> =U+Z1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <fu...@nonintuitive.com>.
On Aug 20, 2004, at 4:56 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> The 5 books I just checked in are composed of 640 source files (the
> sixth book adds 113 files).
>
> I agree this isn't the most optimal approach, but the individual who
> generated the files has been on vacation. The fastest way to get out of
> the starting gate with docs when the code gets posted is to put on the
> web site what is available now -- and discuss a more optimal
> organization later.
Then yes, considering the number of files, I suggest checking in the
source for the docs to derby/site, keeping the compiled docs out of
derby/code for now, and figuring out a better way to generate the docs
at a later date.
andrew
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 16:40, Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> Not to get too far off-topic here, but:
...
> How many files are in the compiled documentation? As the number of
> files goes up, the value of including all of those files in the tree
> with the source goes down, particularly if they are available on the
> website.
>
> Would it be possible to have them output as a single file per book? If
> it were only 5 or 6 files, it would still be worthwhile (meaning: not
> annoying) to have the documentation versioned along with the source it
> documents.
The 5 books I just checked in are composed of 640 source files (the
sixth book adds 113 files).
I agree this isn't the most optimal approach, but the individual who
generated the files has been on vacation. The fastest way to get out of
the starting gate with docs when the code gets posted is to put on the
web site what is available now -- and discuss a more optimal
organization later.
-jean
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <fu...@nonintuitive.com>.
Not to get too far off-topic here, but:
On Aug 20, 2004, at 4:22 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> But instead of one file per book, they are organized into many files
> per
> book. forrest consumes the files in the src tree and spits out html
> files into the build tree -- and the result is so very many files that
> the Derby community may want to revisit this later.
How many files are in the compiled documentation? As the number of
files goes up, the value of including all of those files in the tree
with the source goes down, particularly if they are available on the
website.
Would it be possible to have them output as a single file per book? If
it were only 5 or 6 files, it would still be worthwhile (meaning: not
annoying) to have the documentation versioned along with the source it
documents.
andrew
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
I vote for number 1 to keep the site separate from the code as a
practical issue for managing the Derby documentation.
In other email, Andrew <fu...@nonintuitive.com> asked:
> Are there source files for the docs, which are then generated by
> forrest? If so, I would think the repository would look something
like:
The 6 Cloudscape manuals were converted for Derby into a format
consumable by forrest, so initially I'm including them in the Derby site
itself (http://incubator.apache.org/derby) -- in fact I just checked 5
of the manuals into the repository, where they await our Rodent of
Unusual Size's magic incantation to become visible on the site itself.
But instead of one file per book, they are organized into many files per
book. forrest consumes the files in the src tree and spits out html
files into the build tree -- and the result is so very many files that
the Derby community may want to revisit this later.
I initialized the site with the default forrest structure -- and this
too could be revisited later.
-jean
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 09:52, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The import of the derby code is looming; it would be nice to have a
> decision about the repository structure. So let's measure consensus the
> Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can collate the results
> next Monday (8/23); our community is still small enough that we don't
> need to wait a long time to close the vote.
>
> [ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
> trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
> derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
>
> [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
> ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
>
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBJixEIv0S4qsbfuQRAsLgAKCPsTWhm56KzE3/szQEJOZsyHPeXQCgvNaG
> xO8CocfgPoo0i3i+Azdwbc4=
> =U+Z1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Jason Rimmer <jr...@irth.net>.
While I've used svn a fair amount I am not a committer so take my vote
with a grain of salt.
Option 1.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The import of the derby code is looming; it would be nice to have a
> decision about the repository structure. So let's measure consensus the
> Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can collate the results
> next Monday (8/23); our community is still small enough that we don't
> need to wait a long time to close the vote.
>
> [ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
> trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
> derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
>
> [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
> ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
>
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBJixEIv0S4qsbfuQRAsLgAKCPsTWhm56KzE3/szQEJOZsyHPeXQCgvNaG
> xO8CocfgPoo0i3i+Azdwbc4=
> =U+Z1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Jason Rimmer
jrimmer at irth dot net
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@Sourcery.Org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
| The import of the derby code is looming; it would be nice to have a
| decision about the repository structure. So let's measure consensus the
| Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can collate the results
| next Monday (8/23); our community is still small enough that we don't
| need to wait a long time to close the vote.
|
| [ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in separately-versionable
| trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
| derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
|
| [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
| ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
|
|
| Dan.
I am just back from vacation and don't know if it is too late but ...
I vote for option 1.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows 2000)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBKi+MG0h36bFmkocRAoCwAJ9E+FgpeO54wUFZtMHW2hgAX07iFgCgpV3+
EsJ/5XeX34dJWqXyA5N49dc=
=ldux
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Steen Jansdal <st...@jansdal.dk>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
> | [10 (ten) votes ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in
> separately-versionable
> | trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
> | derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
> |
> | [1 (one) vote ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
> | ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
>
>
> So option 1, separate code and site pages in separately-versionable
> trees is selected.
>
> Thanks for the votes.
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBK01xIv0S4qsbfuQRAt8WAKCApHVuY1QuO8UrZqBH8YSquT8DbACgiIWn
> SsP11awIQ8emW8l64vV0YBs=
> =CdI9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
So now that it's decided, please check in the code :-)
We can't wait any longer.....
[RESULT] [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
| [10 (ten) votes ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in
separately-versionable
| trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
| derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
|
| [1 (one) vote ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single tree
| ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>} )
So option 1, separate code and site pages in separately-versionable
trees is selected.
Thanks for the votes.
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBK01xIv0S4qsbfuQRAt8WAKCApHVuY1QuO8UrZqBH8YSquT8DbACgiIWn
SsP11awIQ8emW8l64vV0YBs=
=CdI9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [VOTE] on repository layout
Posted by Ken Seymour <ke...@yahoo.com>.
--- Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The import of the derby code is looming; it would be
> nice to have a
> decision about the repository structure. So let's
> measure consensus the
> Apache way and vote on it. :) I think that we can
> collate the results
> next Monday (8/23); our community is still small
> enough that we don't
> need to wait a long time to close the vote.
>
> [ ] Option 1: Keep the code and site pages in
> separately-versionable
> trees ( derby/site/{trunk,tags,branches}/<pages> and
> derby/code/{t,t,b}<code> )
>
I vote for option 1.
> [ ] Option 2: Put all things Derby into a single
> tree
> ~ ( derby/{trunk,tags,branches}/{<code>,<pages>}
> )
>
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>
iD8DBQFBJixEIv0S4qsbfuQRAsLgAKCPsTWhm56KzE3/szQEJOZsyHPeXQCgvNaG
> xO8CocfgPoo0i3i+Azdwbc4=
> =U+Z1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>