You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@abdera.apache.org by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> on 2006/06/16 22:33:25 UTC
Now that the code's in
A few little things I've noticed...
There are various files in the abdera java tree that have
svn:executable set on them for no discernable reason. If someone with
commit access could remove it from LICENSE and the various pom.xml
files they'd earn my undying gratitude ;-)
We have maven build glue in the top level of the tree, but the ant
build file is down in the build subdir. Is there a reason for that?
I've got some local changes that move build.xml up into the top level
directory, so you don't have to do the '-f build/build.xml' dance when
you run make. Any interest in these changes?
The unit tests don't work via ant anymore, the target is commented
out, and the test suite that used to be there doesn't seem to exist
anymore.
-garrett
RE: Now that the code's in
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elias Torres [mailto:eliast@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Elias Torres
> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 10:21 PM
> To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Now that the code's in
>
>
>
> Gav.... wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rooneg@gmail.com [mailto:rooneg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Garrett
> >> Rooney
> >> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 9:27 PM
> >> To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org;
> brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au
> >> Subject: Re: Now that the code's in
> >>
> >> On 6/17/06, Gav.... <br...@brightontown.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It may just be these projects, but it seems to me that the layout of
> the
> >>> Repository here is a little weird.
> >>>
> >>> I mean, why have two trunks ? , Can the website not be part of the
> same
> >>> trunk, it would make for easier maintenance and deployment in the
> >>> Future, ease of use and readability for users etc also.
> >> I'm not clear how putting the web site in with the source has anything
> >> to do with deployment... The main reason I saw in keeping them
> >> separate is that eventually I see us as having multiple
> >> implementations of Abdera in different languages, and I don't see any
> >> need to force people to check out all of them in order to get the
> >> parts they want.
> >
> > That's fine. Will the website become i18n compliant to cope with the
> > documentation needed for these languages?
>
> I think he meant programming languages. Why should people check java
> when all they want is Python or C++.
Er, oops.
Gav...
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006
Re: Now that the code's in
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
Gav.... wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rooneg@gmail.com [mailto:rooneg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Garrett
>> Rooney
>> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 9:27 PM
>> To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org; brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au
>> Subject: Re: Now that the code's in
>>
>> On 6/17/06, Gav.... <br...@brightontown.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> It may just be these projects, but it seems to me that the layout of the
>>> Repository here is a little weird.
>>>
>>> I mean, why have two trunks ? , Can the website not be part of the same
>>> trunk, it would make for easier maintenance and deployment in the
>>> Future, ease of use and readability for users etc also.
>> I'm not clear how putting the web site in with the source has anything
>> to do with deployment... The main reason I saw in keeping them
>> separate is that eventually I see us as having multiple
>> implementations of Abdera in different languages, and I don't see any
>> need to force people to check out all of them in order to get the
>> parts they want.
>
> That's fine. Will the website become i18n compliant to cope with the
> documentation needed for these languages?
I think he meant programming languages. Why should people check java
when all they want is Python or C++.
RE: Now that the code's in
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rooneg@gmail.com [mailto:rooneg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Garrett
> Rooney
> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 9:27 PM
> To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org; brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au
> Subject: Re: Now that the code's in
>
> On 6/17/06, Gav.... <br...@brightontown.com.au> wrote:
>
> > It may just be these projects, but it seems to me that the layout of the
> > Repository here is a little weird.
> >
> > I mean, why have two trunks ? , Can the website not be part of the same
> > trunk, it would make for easier maintenance and deployment in the
> > Future, ease of use and readability for users etc also.
>
> I'm not clear how putting the web site in with the source has anything
> to do with deployment... The main reason I saw in keeping them
> separate is that eventually I see us as having multiple
> implementations of Abdera in different languages, and I don't see any
> need to force people to check out all of them in order to get the
> parts they want.
That's fine. Will the website become i18n compliant to cope with the
documentation needed for these languages?
>
> > Also, I don't think that anything above 'trunk' (either one) should be
> > Available to the general dev/user community. Not a good idea to let
> > Everyone loose with branches etc.
> >
> > Instructions should then be put on the website that devs/users can
> download
> > The latest SVN from 'Trunk', not root.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. The instructions do say they should
> check out the trunk, and never (that I'm aware of) the root.
>
> > New users might like to see
> >
> > 'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/ > abdera' as
> it is
> > Currently on the website so they don't have to run off and find the
> > appropriate command. If it were reorganised into one trunk this would be
>
> Where on the website do you see that?
I don't see it at all, that's why I said users 'might like to see'. The only
Reference to the repository is on faq.html in the building Abdera section
which points to the root - i.e. Both trunks and branches etc. (Or the direct
link to same from the navigation)
"The current source for Abdera is located in the Apache Incubator Subversion
repository (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/)"
This is obviously fine if everyone is happy that two trunks are to exist
beneath it and also that branches are available to all.
The main point was that the SVN command 'svn co ...' is not on the website
And might be a good idea so people get used to using SVN rather than through
The browser.
>
> > 'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/trunk > abdera'
> > And would contain both the java and site trees in one, but all branches
> > And other unneeded files/directories would be ignored and reserved for
> > Only committer use. Otherwise I reckon 'svn revert' will become someones
> > Best friend.
>
> Uhh, I really think you're heading off in some strange direction with
> your assumptions. Nothing that I can find suggests anyone checking
> out anything other than the specific branches they care about (the
> trunk of the java tree, the trunk of the site, etc).
Probably, I was changing my SVN command example to what would be used in
both trunks were merged. I see you think there is no need to do that.
As Forrest and Lenya are tools for building/maintaining websites and project
documentation, it makes sense that the websites generated are within the
same trunk as the core development code, I was just using them as an example
Of the layout that could be used here. I can see here that there will be
those that just want to get on and code and not worry about the website at
all, and there will be those that will worry about the other or both, so I
can see where it makes sense to have a trunk for each. Some may then choose
to only download one trunk as they wish, but it would be nice if coders
could update the site with their changes and ideas etc.
>
> > The snell_sandbox, is this for everyone to play with ? If so an idea
> > I bring from Forrest etc is the Whiteboard, call it the Sandbox if you
> > Like, but is housed not in a branch, but as a sub-dir of trunk, that
> > Way everyone gets to play, add there own whiteboard/sandbox sub-
> projects.
> > Eventually they either get deleted or merged into the core, or a plugin,
> > whatever.
>
> I suspect James is using that branch to experiment on. If people have
> a problem with that we can certainly have him move that work into the
> trunk, but I personally don't see what the issue is.
The Issue is not with the experiment, merely that it would have to move if
branches themselves were made non-public as I suggested earlier in the post.
There is no issue if you are happy with branches being available to all. My
experience so far has been that branches remained exclusive to committers
only, hence the suggestion.
Gav...
>
> -garrett
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006
Re: Now that the code's in
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 6/17/06, Gav.... <br...@brightontown.com.au> wrote:
> It may just be these projects, but it seems to me that the layout of the
> Repository here is a little weird.
>
> I mean, why have two trunks ? , Can the website not be part of the same
> trunk, it would make for easier maintenance and deployment in the
> Future, ease of use and readability for users etc also.
I'm not clear how putting the web site in with the source has anything
to do with deployment... The main reason I saw in keeping them
separate is that eventually I see us as having multiple
implementations of Abdera in different languages, and I don't see any
need to force people to check out all of them in order to get the
parts they want.
> Also, I don't think that anything above 'trunk' (either one) should be
> Available to the general dev/user community. Not a good idea to let
> Everyone loose with branches etc.
>
> Instructions should then be put on the website that devs/users can download
> The latest SVN from 'Trunk', not root.
I'm not sure what you mean here. The instructions do say they should
check out the trunk, and never (that I'm aware of) the root.
> New users might like to see
>
> 'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/ > abdera' as it is
> Currently on the website so they don't have to run off and find the
> appropriate command. If it were reorganised into one trunk this would be
Where on the website do you see that?
> 'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/trunk > abdera'
> And would contain both the java and site trees in one, but all branches
> And other unneeded files/directories would be ignored and reserved for
> Only committer use. Otherwise I reckon 'svn revert' will become someones
> Best friend.
Uhh, I really think you're heading off in some strange direction with
your assumptions. Nothing that I can find suggests anyone checking
out anything other than the specific branches they care about (the
trunk of the java tree, the trunk of the site, etc).
> The snell_sandbox, is this for everyone to play with ? If so an idea
> I bring from Forrest etc is the Whiteboard, call it the Sandbox if you
> Like, but is housed not in a branch, but as a sub-dir of trunk, that
> Way everyone gets to play, add there own whiteboard/sandbox sub-projects.
> Eventually they either get deleted or merged into the core, or a plugin,
> whatever.
I suspect James is using that branch to experiment on. If people have
a problem with that we can certainly have him move that work into the
trunk, but I personally don't see what the issue is.
-garrett
Re: Now that the code's in
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
Gav.... wrote:
>
>
> The snell_sandbox, is this for everyone to play with ? If so an idea
> I bring from Forrest etc is the Whiteboard, call it the Sandbox if you
> Like, but is housed not in a branch, but as a sub-dir of trunk, that
> Way everyone gets to play, add there own whiteboard/sandbox sub-projects.
> Eventually they either get deleted or merged into the core, or a plugin,
> whatever.
This is what Roller does and I also had suggested to James. However, I
think that there's a need for both. If it's something that's in early
stages, maybe a full branch works best because you need a *whole* copy
of the tree to make modifications in other parts of the tree, ie. some
refactoring/redesign. Else, it might very well be in trunk/sandbox so
others can follow it more easily. For example, validator, rdf
serializer, etc can be in trunk/sandbox for everyone to play with if
desired.
I'd also rather not have personal sandboxes, but instead
feature-specific branches, that way many can work there. Personal
sandboxes makes the project feel less community-driven.
-Elias
RE: Now that the code's in
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Duncan [mailto:stephen.duncan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 6:30 AM
> To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Now that the code's in
>
> And the Eclipse .settings folder. And probably .project at top level
> as well (and any sublevels it's not on...)
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 6/16/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, in each level that has a pom.xml, the target folder should be
> > added to svn:ignore.
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> > On 6/16/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > > A few little things I've noticed...
> > >
> > > There are various files in the abdera java tree that have
> > > svn:executable set on them for no discernable reason. If someone with
> > > commit access could remove it from LICENSE and the various pom.xml
> > > files they'd earn my undying gratitude ;-)
> > >
> > > We have maven build glue in the top level of the tree, but the ant
> > > build file is down in the build subdir. Is there a reason for that?
> > > I've got some local changes that move build.xml up into the top level
> > > directory, so you don't have to do the '-f build/build.xml' dance when
> > > you run make. Any interest in these changes?
> > >
> > > The unit tests don't work via ant anymore, the target is commented
> > > out, and the test suite that used to be there doesn't seem to exist
> > > anymore.
> > >
> > > -garrett
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen Duncan Jr
> > www.stephenduncanjr.com
Just to add my little bit,
I am a Forrest Dev (in case you wondered where I popped up from) and also
Do little bit in Lenya.
It may just be these projects, but it seems to me that the layout of the
Repository here is a little weird.
I mean, why have two trunks ? , Can the website not be part of the same
trunk, it would make for easier maintenance and deployment in the
Future, ease of use and readability for users etc also.
Also, I don't think that anything above 'trunk' (either one) should be
Available to the general dev/user community. Not a good idea to let
Everyone loose with branches etc.
Instructions should then be put on the website that devs/users can download
The latest SVN from 'Trunk', not root.
New users might like to see
'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/ > abdera' as it is
Currently on the website so they don't have to run off and find the
appropriate command. If it were reorganised into one trunk this would be
'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/trunk > abdera'
And would contain both the java and site trees in one, but all branches
And other unneeded files/directories would be ignored and reserved for
Only committer use. Otherwise I reckon 'svn revert' will become someones
Best friend.
The snell_sandbox, is this for everyone to play with ? If so an idea
I bring from Forrest etc is the Whiteboard, call it the Sandbox if you
Like, but is housed not in a branch, but as a sub-dir of trunk, that
Way everyone gets to play, add there own whiteboard/sandbox sub-projects.
Eventually they either get deleted or merged into the core, or a plugin,
whatever.
Just some observations that may or may not fit in with the needs of this
Project.
Gav...
Re: Now that the code's in
Posted by Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com>.
And the Eclipse .settings folder. And probably .project at top level
as well (and any sublevels it's not on...)
-Stephen
On 6/16/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, in each level that has a pom.xml, the target folder should be
> added to svn:ignore.
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 6/16/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > A few little things I've noticed...
> >
> > There are various files in the abdera java tree that have
> > svn:executable set on them for no discernable reason. If someone with
> > commit access could remove it from LICENSE and the various pom.xml
> > files they'd earn my undying gratitude ;-)
> >
> > We have maven build glue in the top level of the tree, but the ant
> > build file is down in the build subdir. Is there a reason for that?
> > I've got some local changes that move build.xml up into the top level
> > directory, so you don't have to do the '-f build/build.xml' dance when
> > you run make. Any interest in these changes?
> >
> > The unit tests don't work via ant anymore, the target is commented
> > out, and the test suite that used to be there doesn't seem to exist
> > anymore.
> >
> > -garrett
> >
>
>
> --
> Stephen Duncan Jr
> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
Re: Now that the code's in
Posted by Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com>.
Also, in each level that has a pom.xml, the target folder should be
added to svn:ignore.
-Stephen
On 6/16/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> A few little things I've noticed...
>
> There are various files in the abdera java tree that have
> svn:executable set on them for no discernable reason. If someone with
> commit access could remove it from LICENSE and the various pom.xml
> files they'd earn my undying gratitude ;-)
>
> We have maven build glue in the top level of the tree, but the ant
> build file is down in the build subdir. Is there a reason for that?
> I've got some local changes that move build.xml up into the top level
> directory, so you don't have to do the '-f build/build.xml' dance when
> you run make. Any interest in these changes?
>
> The unit tests don't work via ant anymore, the target is commented
> out, and the test suite that used to be there doesn't seem to exist
> anymore.
>
> -garrett
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com