Moving files around in trunk

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I'd like restructure our codebase a little as it feels a bit scattered
to me, in particular I'd like to move

src/* => src/main/* (except for site)
tests => src/tests
examples => src/examples
extensions => src/extensions

and I'd like to modify the build files so that assemblies and all
documentation is created in a common directory - rooted under build or
target, you name it:

bin => $TARGET/assembly
doc/sdk => $TARGET/site/current/sdk

does that make sense?

Stefan

BTW, I've just finished setting up a new VM for log4net development.
Now that I can drop 1.x I went for Win7, installed SDKs for .NET 2.0,
3.5 and 4.0 as well as Mono 2.10 and now have a single environment that
builds all target frameworks expeceted for 1.3 - and could also target
mono-3.5 and mono-4.0.  This should be possible to re-create on any Win7
box without requiring stuff you'd need an MSDN subscription for.

Site generation

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On 2013-11-03, Dominik Psenner wrote:

> On 11/02/2013 10:41 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2013-11-01, Dominik Psenner wrote:

>>> 2013/11/1 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>
>>>> I'd like restructure our codebase a little as it feels a bit scattered
>>>> to me, in particular I'd like to move
>>>> src/* => src/main/* (except for site)
>>>> tests => src/tests
>>>> examples => src/examples
>>>> extensions => src/extensions
>>> And maybe src/site to some other place like doc/website and split the
>>> build process so that site and src are no longer tightly bound to each
>>> other?
>> OK, this will take some POM massage - or moving away from maven for the
>> website build, which I wouldn't mind at all.
> The smaller the required tool set, the better it would be. I'm sure
> you know which way's the best.

Not really.

I think the docs used to be static HTML files and were switched to Maven
in order to make it easier to share the L&F with the rest of Logging.
But in fact, much of logging (main site, log4j and log4php) is using a
different skin by now.

The other benefit was removing the boilerplate HTML required for each
and every page.

I'm not sure which tool would be easier for us, not sure whether there'd
be some markdown => html solution that could be run from within NAnt or
what else NAnt could offer in that space.  XSLT would certainly work but
not really simplifies anything.

Another option might be to use the Apache CMS for our static
documentation and only add the API docs from our build - that would
imply we'd no longer ship the documentation pages with the log4net
distribution.

Stefan

Re: Moving files around in trunk

[Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>]

On 11/02/2013 10:41 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2013-11-01, Dominik Psenner wrote:
>
>> 2013/11/1 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>
>>> I'd like restructure our codebase a little as it feels a bit scattered
>>> to me, in particular I'd like to move
>>> src/* => src/main/* (except for site)
>>> tests => src/tests
>>> examples => src/examples
>>> extensions => src/extensions
>> And maybe src/site to some other place like doc/website and split the
>> build process so that site and src are no longer tightly bound to each
>> other?
> OK, this will take some POM massage - or moving away from maven for the
> website build, which I wouldn't mind at all.
The smaller the required tool set, the better it would be. I'm sure you 
know which way's the best.
>
>>> BTW, I've just finished setting up a new VM for log4net development.
>>> Now that I can drop 1.x I went for Win7, installed SDKs for .NET 2.0,
>>> 3.5 and 4.0 as well as Mono 2.10 and now have a single environment that
>>> builds all target frameworks expeceted for 1.3 - and could also target
>>> mono-3.5 and mono-4.0.  This should be possible to re-create on any Win7
>>> box without requiring stuff you'd need an MSDN subscription for.
>> Would you like to share the VM (if possible with respect to licensing
>> etc)?
> Licensing is a problem as it has to run a version of Windows 7
> (professional in my case).  Sharing the installer packages for the rest
> is easy but it will still take a few hours of work to re-build the VM
> with repeatedly installing updates and all that.
Maybe we can get a valid license through ASF that we can share among our 
team (or logging)? The VM (or the keys for activation) could be put 
somewhere safe where only team members have access to.

Re: Moving files around in trunk

[Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>]

On 2013-11-01, Dominik Psenner wrote:

> 2013/11/1 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>

>> I'd like restructure our codebase a little as it feels a bit scattered
>> to me, in particular I'd like to move

>> src/* => src/main/* (except for site)
>> tests => src/tests
>> examples => src/examples
>> extensions => src/extensions

> And maybe src/site to some other place like doc/website and split the
> build process so that site and src are no longer tightly bound to each
> other?

OK, this will take some POM massage - or moving away from maven for the
website build, which I wouldn't mind at all.

>> BTW, I've just finished setting up a new VM for log4net development.
>> Now that I can drop 1.x I went for Win7, installed SDKs for .NET 2.0,
>> 3.5 and 4.0 as well as Mono 2.10 and now have a single environment that
>> builds all target frameworks expeceted for 1.3 - and could also target
>> mono-3.5 and mono-4.0.  This should be possible to re-create on any Win7
>> box without requiring stuff you'd need an MSDN subscription for.

> Would you like to share the VM (if possible with respect to licensing
> etc)?

Licensing is a problem as it has to run a version of Windows 7
(professional in my case).  Sharing the installer packages for the rest
is easy but it will still take a few hours of work to re-build the VM
with repeatedly installing updates and all that.

Stefan

Re: Moving files around in trunk

[Dominik Psenner <dp...@gmail.com>]

See inlines.

2013/11/1 Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>

> Hi,
>
> I'd like restructure our codebase a little as it feels a bit scattered
> to me, in particular I'd like to move
>
> src/* => src/main/* (except for site)
> tests => src/tests
> examples => src/examples
> extensions => src/extensions
>

And maybe src/site to some other place like doc/website and split the build
process so that site and src are no longer tightly bound to each other? We
run often into the case that we add just another FAQ entry, but do not
actually release a new binary.


>
> and I'd like to modify the build files so that assemblies and all
> documentation is created in a common directory - rooted under build or
> target, you name it:
>
> bin => $TARGET/assembly
> doc/sdk => $TARGET/site/current/sdk
>
> does that make sense?
>

+1


>
> Stefan
>
> BTW, I've just finished setting up a new VM for log4net development.
> Now that I can drop 1.x I went for Win7, installed SDKs for .NET 2.0,
> 3.5 and 4.0 as well as Mono 2.10 and now have a single environment that
> builds all target frameworks expeceted for 1.3 - and could also target
> mono-3.5 and mono-4.0.  This should be possible to re-create on any Win7
> box without requiring stuff you'd need an MSDN subscription for.
>

Would you like to share the VM (if possible with respect to licensing etc)?
-- 
Dominik Psenner