You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@river.apache.org by Jim Hurley <Ji...@Sun.COM> on 2007/06/07 17:03:00 UTC
Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Hi all-
Not sure if there was consensus on this... so just doing a quick
double check that we've got agreement. Based on most of the
responses, folks seemed to support Frank's proposal of sticking
with the JTSK repository structure (and moving serviceui to fit in).
There was an alternate structure proposed (adding one additional
level of src) by Craig Russell:
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/
200705.mbox/%3c01F7F559-6C4A-48B4-A518-2512D8BE195F@SUN.com%3e>
That's certainly a reasonable idea, but doing so will break the
build (whether that would need to get fixed prior to or after import is
another question).
So... let's approach it this way -- our default plan is to stick
with the jtsk repository for initial import. If you agree, feel
free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent. If you're
against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
We're anxious to get this in (today if possible) -- so **please**
give it some immediate consideration.
thanks much -Jim
On May 30, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
:
> :
> While we're on the subject, I have a question regarding the SVN
> repository
> structure. Once we're ready to upload to SVN, we're going to need
> a plan
> for the repository layout or does such a plan already exist? If
> not, I'd
> imagine the JTSK repository would basically look like the following:
>
> trunk/jtsk/
> LICENSE
> NOTICE
> build.xml
> build_common.xml
> doc/
> src/
>
> Or should we be more consistent with the current serviceui repository?
>
> trunk/serviceui/
> LICENSE
> NOTICE
> doc/
> com/
> net/
>
> If it's decided the the jtsk repository is to be consistent with
> the serviceui
> repository (ie, move jtsk/src/* up one level), the ant scripts will
> be initially
> broken but could be fixed in short order as one of the initial
> development tasks.
>
> Alternatively, the serviceui repository could be changed to be
> consistent with
> the jtsk repository... At first glance, this approach seems like
> it would be
> more straight forward.
Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Posted by Bob Scheifler <Bo...@Sun.COM>.
Jim Hurley wrote:
> So... let's approach it this way -- our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import.
+1
- Bob
Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 6/7/07, Jim Hurley <Ji...@sun.com> wrote:
> So... let's approach it this way -- our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import. If you agree, feel
> free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent. If you're
> against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
> please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
Sounds good to me!
Even if people prefer some other layout, we can start with the current
one to get people working on the code. We can manage any structural
changes using normal procedures once the code is in svn, i.e. file a
Jira issue for the proposed change and discuss it on the mailing list
to form consensus.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Posted by Jim Waldo <Ji...@sun.com>.
+1
Jim Waldo
On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Jim Hurley wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Not sure if there was consensus on this... so just doing a quick
> double check that we've got agreement. Based on most of the
> responses, folks seemed to support Frank's proposal of sticking
> with the JTSK repository structure (and moving serviceui to fit in).
>
> There was an alternate structure proposed (adding one additional
> level of src) by Craig Russell:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/
> 200705.mbox/%3c01F7F559-6C4A-48B4-A518-2512D8BE195F@SUN.com%3e>
>
> That's certainly a reasonable idea, but doing so will break the
> build (whether that would need to get fixed prior to or after
> import is
> another question).
>
> So... let's approach it this way -- our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import. If you agree, feel
> free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent. If you're
> against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
> please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
>
> We're anxious to get this in (today if possible) -- so **please**
> give it some immediate consideration.
>
> thanks much -Jim
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
> :
>> :
>> While we're on the subject, I have a question regarding the SVN
>> repository
>> structure. Once we're ready to upload to SVN, we're going to need
>> a plan
>> for the repository layout or does such a plan already exist? If
>> not, I'd
>> imagine the JTSK repository would basically look like the following:
>>
>> trunk/jtsk/
>> LICENSE
>> NOTICE
>> build.xml
>> build_common.xml
>> doc/
>> src/
>>
>> Or should we be more consistent with the current serviceui
>> repository?
>>
>> trunk/serviceui/
>> LICENSE
>> NOTICE
>> doc/
>> com/
>> net/
>>
>> If it's decided the the jtsk repository is to be consistent with
>> the serviceui
>> repository (ie, move jtsk/src/* up one level), the ant scripts
>> will be initially
>> broken but could be fixed in short order as one of the initial
>> development tasks.
>>
>> Alternatively, the serviceui repository could be changed to be
>> consistent with
>> the jtsk repository... At first glance, this approach seems like
>> it would be
>> more straight forward.
>
Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
+1
The only reason I raised my alternate structure was to give you an
opportunity to easily change things before they are set. The
structure can be changed in future if the need arises after a
discussion as to the merits.
Craig
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Jim Hurley wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Not sure if there was consensus on this... so just doing a quick
> double check that we've got agreement. Based on most of the
> responses, folks seemed to support Frank's proposal of sticking
> with the JTSK repository structure (and moving serviceui to fit in).
>
> There was an alternate structure proposed (adding one additional
> level of src) by Craig Russell:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/
> 200705.mbox/%3c01F7F559-6C4A-48B4-A518-2512D8BE195F@SUN.com%3e>
>
> That's certainly a reasonable idea, but doing so will break the
> build (whether that would need to get fixed prior to or after
> import is
> another question).
>
> So... let's approach it this way -- our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import. If you agree, feel
> free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent. If you're
> against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
> please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
>
> We're anxious to get this in (today if possible) -- so **please**
> give it some immediate consideration.
>
> thanks much -Jim
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
> :
>> :
>> While we're on the subject, I have a question regarding the SVN
>> repository
>> structure. Once we're ready to upload to SVN, we're going to need
>> a plan
>> for the repository layout or does such a plan already exist? If
>> not, I'd
>> imagine the JTSK repository would basically look like the following:
>>
>> trunk/jtsk/
>> LICENSE
>> NOTICE
>> build.xml
>> build_common.xml
>> doc/
>> src/
>>
>> Or should we be more consistent with the current serviceui
>> repository?
>>
>> trunk/serviceui/
>> LICENSE
>> NOTICE
>> doc/
>> com/
>> net/
>>
>> If it's decided the the jtsk repository is to be consistent with
>> the serviceui
>> repository (ie, move jtsk/src/* up one level), the ant scripts
>> will be initially
>> broken but could be fixed in short order as one of the initial
>> development tasks.
>>
>> Alternatively, the serviceui repository could be changed to be
>> consistent with
>> the jtsk repository... At first glance, this approach seems like
>> it would be
>> more straight forward.
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Posted by Dan Creswell <da...@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>.
+1
Dan.
Jim Hurley wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> Not sure if there was consensus on this... so just doing a quick
> double check that we've got agreement. Based on most of the
> responses, folks seemed to support Frank's proposal of sticking
> with the JTSK repository structure (and moving serviceui to fit in).
>
> There was an alternate structure proposed (adding one additional
> level of src) by Craig Russell:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/200705.mbox/%3c01F7F559-6C4A-48B4-A518-2512D8BE195F@SUN.com%3e>
>
>
> That's certainly a reasonable idea, but doing so will break the
> build (whether that would need to get fixed prior to or after import is
> another question).
>
> So... let's approach it this way -- our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import. If you agree, feel
> free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent. If you're
> against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
> please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
>
> We're anxious to get this in (today if possible) -- so **please**
> give it some immediate consideration.
>
> thanks much -Jim
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
> :
>> :
>> While we're on the subject, I have a question regarding the SVN
>> repository
>> structure. Once we're ready to upload to SVN, we're going to need a plan
>> for the repository layout or does such a plan already exist? If not, I'd
>> imagine the JTSK repository would basically look like the following:
>>
>> trunk/jtsk/
>> LICENSE
>> NOTICE
>> build.xml
>> build_common.xml
>> doc/
>> src/
>>
>> Or should we be more consistent with the current serviceui repository?
>>
>> trunk/serviceui/
>> LICENSE
>> NOTICE
>> doc/
>> com/
>> net/
>>
>> If it's decided the the jtsk repository is to be consistent with the
>> serviceui
>> repository (ie, move jtsk/src/* up one level), the ant scripts will be
>> initially
>> broken but could be fixed in short order as one of the initial
>> development tasks.
>>
>> Alternatively, the serviceui repository could be changed to be
>> consistent with
>> the jtsk repository... At first glance, this approach seems like it
>> would be
>> more straight forward.
>
>