[naming] Shall we move this into new structure?

[Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>]

Anyone going to maven2ify it? I can move it into the new structure if 
you guys like?

Alex

Re: Shall we move this into new structure?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

I had this flagged to follow up from some time ago.

Did we ever get a response from Tomcat as to whether they'd want
naming as a dependency?

- Brett

On 09/01/06, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It really depends on what Tomcat says. If they want to use the code,
> that's great. If they want to take patches such that we can update to
> make it a dependency, that's fine too. If they don't respond at all
> again, it doesn't give me a lot of hope that patches will be applied
> in a timely manner either - but that's an entirely different problem
> :)
>
> I still think it is very useful and could be a lot better (for
> instance, not silently swallowing important exceptions, IIRC).
> However, I'm not using it anymore, and unless I find an excuse to I'm
> unlikely to have a lot of time to do anything with it unfortunately.
>
> I don't think it should be archived - if it ends up that it stays here
> then it would be good to give it a scrub and 1.0 release and see if
> anyone picks up on it. It is useful, so there's a good chance of that.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 1/8/06, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry - I have been having some "technical difficulties" this week.
> >
> > I am still on the fence re jar dependency on tomcat naming,
> > maintaining the full source or letting it go dormant.  I am still
> > interested in others' ideas on this.  I am willing to do the work to
> > refactor for the first option and move to m2, but would also happlily
> > review and apply patches from others who may be interested in getting
> > involved in [naming].  If there is no community or user interest in
> > pushing forward, I am also happy to archive and move on to other
> > things...
> >
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > On 1/7/06, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's structure is already as desired multiproject wise. Since it has a
> > > separate release cycle, I think its best to keep it under a separate
> > > trunk.
> > >
> > > Phil made a couple of nice extensions to the build like aggregated
> > > javadoc that we haven't done for the m2 javadoc plugin yet. Might need
> > > to get those in order before converting.
> > >
> > > Either way, we really need to find out where it is going with regards
> > > to the discussion the other day before doing anything.
> > >
> > > - Brett
> > >
> > > On 1/8/06, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Anyone going to maven2ify it? I can move it into the new structure if
> > > > you guys like?
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
"Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/

Re: Shall we move this into new structure?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

It really depends on what Tomcat says. If they want to use the code,
that's great. If they want to take patches such that we can update to
make it a dependency, that's fine too. If they don't respond at all
again, it doesn't give me a lot of hope that patches will be applied
in a timely manner either - but that's an entirely different problem
:)

I still think it is very useful and could be a lot better (for
instance, not silently swallowing important exceptions, IIRC).
However, I'm not using it anymore, and unless I find an excuse to I'm
unlikely to have a lot of time to do anything with it unfortunately.

I don't think it should be archived - if it ends up that it stays here
then it would be good to give it a scrub and 1.0 release and see if
anyone picks up on it. It is useful, so there's a good chance of that.

- Brett

On 1/8/06, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry - I have been having some "technical difficulties" this week.
>
> I am still on the fence re jar dependency on tomcat naming,
> maintaining the full source or letting it go dormant.  I am still
> interested in others' ideas on this.  I am willing to do the work to
> refactor for the first option and move to m2, but would also happlily
> review and apply patches from others who may be interested in getting
> involved in [naming].  If there is no community or user interest in
> pushing forward, I am also happy to archive and move on to other
> things...
>
>
> Phil
>
> On 1/7/06, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's structure is already as desired multiproject wise. Since it has a
> > separate release cycle, I think its best to keep it under a separate
> > trunk.
> >
> > Phil made a couple of nice extensions to the build like aggregated
> > javadoc that we haven't done for the m2 javadoc plugin yet. Might need
> > to get those in order before converting.
> >
> > Either way, we really need to find out where it is going with regards
> > to the discussion the other day before doing anything.
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > On 1/8/06, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Anyone going to maven2ify it? I can move it into the new structure if
> > > you guys like?
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> >
>

Re: Shall we move this into new structure?

[Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>]

Sorry - I have been having some "technical difficulties" this week.

I am still on the fence re jar dependency on tomcat naming,
maintaining the full source or letting it go dormant.  I am still
interested in others' ideas on this.  I am willing to do the work to
refactor for the first option and move to m2, but would also happlily
review and apply patches from others who may be interested in getting
involved in [naming].  If there is no community or user interest in
pushing forward, I am also happy to archive and move on to other
things...


Phil

On 1/7/06, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's structure is already as desired multiproject wise. Since it has a
> separate release cycle, I think its best to keep it under a separate
> trunk.
>
> Phil made a couple of nice extensions to the build like aggregated
> javadoc that we haven't done for the m2 javadoc plugin yet. Might need
> to get those in order before converting.
>
> Either way, we really need to find out where it is going with regards
> to the discussion the other day before doing anything.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 1/8/06, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Anyone going to maven2ify it? I can move it into the new structure if
> > you guys like?
> >
> > Alex
> >
>

Re: [naming] Shall we move this into new structure?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

On 1/9/06, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Brett we intended to put this all in one trunks area as we've been doing
> to date.  What is under directory/trunk should be called trunks really.
> I'll rename that today but I was asking you guys if you wanted me to
> move naming's trunk into this area.  The tags would go under releases
> and branches would go under branches.

Sounds fine. I was going to ask if the trunk directory was going to
house everything, or just the related things.

- Brett

Re: [naming] Shall we move this into new structure?

[Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>]

Brett Porter wrote:

>It's structure is already as desired multiproject wise. Since it has a
>separate release cycle, I think its best to keep it under a separate
>trunk.
>  
>
Brett we intended to put this all in one trunks area as we've been doing 
to date.  What is under directory/trunk should be called trunks really. 
I'll rename that today but I was asking you guys if you wanted me to 
move naming's trunk into this area.  The tags would go under releases 
and branches would go under branches.

>Phil made a couple of nice extensions to the build like aggregated
>javadoc that we haven't done for the m2 javadoc plugin yet. Might need
>to get those in order before converting.
>  
>
Good idea.  For now we can still move the project into the structure we 
have without converting it to m2.

>Either way, we really need to find out where it is going with regards
>to the discussion the other day before doing anything.
>  
>
The discussion the other day is about hierarchy inside the trunks area.  
When I asked about naming I was not intending on flattening the project 
for you guys.  Just putting its trunk under directory/trunks, tags under 
directory/releases and branches under directory/branches.  Just trying 
to get the top level of directory REPO looking clean.  Naming is the 
only odd man out ATM.

Alex

Re: [naming] Shall we move this into new structure?

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

It's structure is already as desired multiproject wise. Since it has a
separate release cycle, I think its best to keep it under a separate
trunk.

Phil made a couple of nice extensions to the build like aggregated
javadoc that we haven't done for the m2 javadoc plugin yet. Might need
to get those in order before converting.

Either way, we really need to find out where it is going with regards
to the discussion the other day before doing anything.

- Brett

On 1/8/06, Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Anyone going to maven2ify it? I can move it into the new structure if
> you guys like?
>
> Alex
>