You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by ant elder <an...@apache.org> on 2009/10/01 08:09:54 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The current SVN layout is a bit unconventional but its been like this
>> for years now, I don't mind much what happens with the other sub
>> projects as they don't have many users but there's lots of people who
>> are used to where the SCA code is who get broken if we move it, so
>> could we leave those as-is and just add a README at the top level
>> documenting what all the SVN folders are for?
>>
>
> Being broken for years it's not a reason not to fix it now. I have
> gotten feedback from various people that the structure is
> unconventional and hard to navigate trough. Even I have problems these
> days trying to find things on the svn. The reorganization would also
> make more clear what sub-projects are present in Tuscany and would
> group together all it's related artifacts, branches and tags, making
> it much easier for new members to find the places that interest them.
>
> As for getting it broken, I was planning to send detailed notification
> to both user and dev list, and post some instructions on the blog on
> how the changes affects current Tuscany contributors and how they can
> use svn to redirect their local checkouts to the new code location.
>
> Also, from this discussion thread, it looks like the community was
> getting consensus on what and how to do it... with other members
> volunteering to help with the efforts.
>
Its not broken, what we have works. If we move the SCA locations we
will break people. Emailing the mailing lists wont change that as not
everyone reads the lists regularly and IIRC when moving from the
incubator svn the svn redirects didn't work well.
We could simplify the current layout a bit by tidying
up/rearranging/deleting some files and folders and that would be good
to do. But some things such as the tags we can't move without breaking
lots of historical links in documentation emails, articles etc.
How about starting with small steps by tidying up the easy things
first which we can change without breaking anything and seeing what
sort of improvement that gives?
...ant
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
+1 to do so, probably during a weekend.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Luciano Resende" <lu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:03 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Cc: <an...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Who are the people that blindly check out our source code without reading
>> our web sites or mailing list? Do we reference the svn directories in our
>> releases?
>>
>> If people find a svn directory doesn't exist any more, they can just
>> simply
>> do one of the following:
>>
>> 1) Check our web site (We should add a "Source Code" to left panel on our
>> home page)
>> 2) Browse http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany (The proposed new
>> subfolders are self-explanatory).
>> 3) Ask on the Tuscany dev or user ML
>>
>> If we like the new structure technically, let's do it. +1 from me.
>>
>
>
> Looks like various people were in agreement to clean up our SVN
> structure to make things a little more organized and bring related
> resources together. I was thinking if we could do this and be ready
> for ApacheCon (sometime before end of the month)...
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino
<js...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Done. The new structure follows the description on the Wiki [1] and is
> similar to what has been done for the Java projects:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-cpp/
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-cpp/
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-cpp/
>
> and under each directory:
> branches/
> tags/
> trunk/
>
> I've left a few cpp tags under:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/
>
> I think they can be removed as they're just interim release candidate tags
> and the final release tags are available in the new structure, if anybody
> has time to do it later this week...
>
Thanks Sebastien, I have also cleaned up the interim release candidate
tags you have mentioned.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Luciano Resende
>> <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Luciano Resende
>>> <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The SDO and DAS projects are now structured as Tuscany subprojects
>>>>
>>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-java/
>>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-java/
>>>>
>>>> I'll start working on the 1.x code base sometime tomorrow PST time and
>>>> move all branches and tags. As for the 1.5.2 branch and 1.x branch
>>>> (actually trunk) I would like to get a confirmation that nobody have
>>>> any big uncommitted changes before I can move it as the 1.x trunk.
>>>>
>>>> For more details on the proposed changes, see the update SVN Structure
>>>> proposal [1]
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Most of the branches and tags for 1.x and 2.x are now on the new SVN
>>> structure
>>>
>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-1.x/
>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/
>>>
>>> As I didn't hear back from anyone regarding any big changes in 1.x or
>>> 1.5.2 branches, I'll move them to the new structure on Thursday around
>>> lunch PST time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The new SVN structure is mostly in place, except for Natice (CPP) and
>> the 2.x trunk.
>> It would be good to get some help from the folks working on
>> Native(CPP) to get that in place.
>> As for the 2.x, when would be a good time to migrate that ? Is this
>> weekend a good time ?
>>
>
> OK, I'll try to do the cpp tree if I find some time tonight.
>
Done. The new structure follows the description on the Wiki [1] and is
similar to what has been done for the Java projects:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-cpp/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-cpp/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-cpp/
and under each directory:
branches/
tags/
trunk/
I've left a few cpp tags under:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/
I think they can be removed as they're just interim release candidate
tags and the final release tags are available in the new structure, if
anybody has time to do it later this week...
[1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
--
Jean-Sebastien
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The SDO and DAS projects are now structured as Tuscany subprojects
>>>
>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-java/
>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-java/
>>>
>>> I'll start working on the 1.x code base sometime tomorrow PST time and
>>> move all branches and tags. As for the 1.5.2 branch and 1.x branch
>>> (actually trunk) I would like to get a confirmation that nobody have
>>> any big uncommitted changes before I can move it as the 1.x trunk.
>>>
>>> For more details on the proposed changes, see the update SVN Structure
>>> proposal [1]
>>>
>>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
>>>
>> Most of the branches and tags for 1.x and 2.x are now on the new SVN structure
>>
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-1.x/
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/
>>
>> As I didn't hear back from anyone regarding any big changes in 1.x or
>> 1.5.2 branches, I'll move them to the new structure on Thursday around
>> lunch PST time.
>>
>>
>
> The new SVN structure is mostly in place, except for Natice (CPP) and
> the 2.x trunk.
> It would be good to get some help from the folks working on
> Native(CPP) to get that in place.
> As for the 2.x, when would be a good time to migrate that ? Is this
> weekend a good time ?
>
OK, I'll try to do the cpp tree if I find some time tonight.
--
Jean-Sebastien
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ok by me. I don't have any big changes outstanding at the moment.
>
> Simon
>
Done. I have also updated Website, 2.x development guide and posted in
Tuscany blog a summary of the recent changes.
Please let me know if you find any issues, I'll keep a close eye to
the list in the next couple hours/days just in case...
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
Ok by me. I don't have any big changes outstanding at the moment.
Simon
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
+1.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Luciano Resende" <lu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:04 AM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm done with the big check-in. Feel free to move the svn repo for 2.x
>>> trunk
>>> now :-).
>>>
>>
>> Others ?
>>
>
> Any chance we can move the current 2.x trunk [1] to it's new position
> in the new svn structure [2] in the next couple days ? I'd like to do
> it tomorrow around noon PST time if others are done with any big
> pending commits.
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/
> [2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm done with the big check-in. Feel free to move the svn repo for 2.x trunk
>> now :-).
>>
>
> Others ?
>
Any chance we can move the current 2.x trunk [1] to it's new position
in the new svn structure [2] in the next couple days ? I'd like to do
it tomorrow around noon PST time if others are done with any big
pending commits.
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/
[2] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/trunk/
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm done with the big check-in. Feel free to move the svn repo for 2.x trunk
> now :-).
>
Others ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I'm done with the big check-in. Feel free to move the svn repo for 2.x trunk
now :-).
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Luciano Resende" <lu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:22 PM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can you wait a bit for 2.x? I'm working on the
>> RuntimeEndpoint/RuntimeEndpointReference to replace RuntimeWire [1]. Many
>> files are touched. I'll check them in as soon as the build is passing.
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@tuscany.apache.org/msg07856.html
>>
>
> Sure, just wanted to check...
> I'll check next weekend again...
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you wait a bit for 2.x? I'm working on the
> RuntimeEndpoint/RuntimeEndpointReference to replace RuntimeWire [1]. Many
> files are touched. I'll check them in as soon as the build is passing.
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@tuscany.apache.org/msg07856.html
>
Sure, just wanted to check...
I'll check next weekend again...
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Can you wait a bit for 2.x? I'm working on the
RuntimeEndpoint/RuntimeEndpointReference to replace RuntimeWire [1]. Many
files are touched. I'll check them in as soon as the build is passing.
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@tuscany.apache.org/msg07856.html
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Luciano Resende" <lu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:37 PM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The SDO and DAS projects are now structured as Tuscany subprojects
>>>
>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-java/
>>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-java/
>>>
>>> I'll start working on the 1.x code base sometime tomorrow PST time and
>>> move all branches and tags. As for the 1.5.2 branch and 1.x branch
>>> (actually trunk) I would like to get a confirmation that nobody have
>>> any big uncommitted changes before I can move it as the 1.x trunk.
>>>
>>> For more details on the proposed changes, see the update SVN Structure
>>> proposal [1]
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
>>>
>>
>> Most of the branches and tags for 1.x and 2.x are now on the new SVN
>> structure
>>
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-1.x/
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/
>>
>> As I didn't hear back from anyone regarding any big changes in 1.x or
>> 1.5.2 branches, I'll move them to the new structure on Thursday around
>> lunch PST time.
>>
>>
>
> The new SVN structure is mostly in place, except for Natice (CPP) and
> the 2.x trunk.
> It would be good to get some help from the folks working on
> Native(CPP) to get that in place.
> As for the 2.x, when would be a good time to migrate that ? Is this
> weekend a good time ?
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The SDO and DAS projects are now structured as Tuscany subprojects
>>
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-java/
>> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-java/
>>
>> I'll start working on the 1.x code base sometime tomorrow PST time and
>> move all branches and tags. As for the 1.5.2 branch and 1.x branch
>> (actually trunk) I would like to get a confirmation that nobody have
>> any big uncommitted changes before I can move it as the 1.x trunk.
>>
>> For more details on the proposed changes, see the update SVN Structure
>> proposal [1]
>>
>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
>>
>
> Most of the branches and tags for 1.x and 2.x are now on the new SVN structure
>
> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-1.x/
> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/
>
> As I didn't hear back from anyone regarding any big changes in 1.x or
> 1.5.2 branches, I'll move them to the new structure on Thursday around
> lunch PST time.
>
>
The new SVN structure is mostly in place, except for Natice (CPP) and
the 2.x trunk.
It would be good to get some help from the folks working on
Native(CPP) to get that in place.
As for the 2.x, when would be a good time to migrate that ? Is this
weekend a good time ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The SDO and DAS projects are now structured as Tuscany subprojects
>
> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-java/
> - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-java/
>
> I'll start working on the 1.x code base sometime tomorrow PST time and
> move all branches and tags. As for the 1.5.2 branch and 1.x branch
> (actually trunk) I would like to get a confirmation that nobody have
> any big uncommitted changes before I can move it as the 1.x trunk.
>
> For more details on the proposed changes, see the update SVN Structure
> proposal [1]
>
> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
>
Most of the branches and tags for 1.x and 2.x are now on the new SVN structure
- https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-1.x/
- https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sca-java-2.x/
As I didn't hear back from anyone regarding any big changes in 1.x or
1.5.2 branches, I'll move them to the new structure on Thursday around
lunch PST time.
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
The SDO and DAS projects are now structured as Tuscany subprojects
- https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/das-java/
- https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/sdo-java/
I'll start working on the 1.x code base sometime tomorrow PST time and
move all branches and tags. As for the 1.5.2 branch and 1.x branch
(actually trunk) I would like to get a confirmation that nobody have
any big uncommitted changes before I can move it as the 1.x trunk.
For more details on the proposed changes, see the update SVN Structure
proposal [1]
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+SVN+Structure
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
I'm more keen on the tidy up than Ant but I too would like to
concentrate on the functional rather than the aesthetic at the moment.
At least until we have a good proportion of the conformance work done.
Regards
Simon
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by ant elder <an...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Who are the people that blindly check out our source code without reading
>> our web sites or mailing list? Do we reference the svn directories in our
>> releases?
>>
>> If people find a svn directory doesn't exist any more, they can just simply
>> do one of the following:
>>
>> 1) Check our web site (We should add a "Source Code" to left panel on our
>> home page)
>> 2) Browse http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany (The proposed new
>> subfolders are self-explanatory).
>> 3) Ask on the Tuscany dev or user ML
>>
>> If we like the new structure technically, let's do it. +1 from me.
>>
>
>
> Looks like various people were in agreement to clean up our SVN
> structure to make things a little more organized and bring related
> resources together. I was thinking if we could do this and be ready
> for ApacheCon (sometime before end of the month)...
>
> Thoughts ?
>
I'm still not keen, and I don't see whats wrong with just doing some
minor cleanup and adding a README to to the top of SVN which should be
enough to make it clear for anyone. Moves like you're suggesting _are_
going to be disruptive, we've a ton of stuff to do that really will
make a difference such as all spec conformance work, and i think it
would be better to get that type of thing done for ApacheCon.
...ant
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who are the people that blindly check out our source code without reading
> our web sites or mailing list? Do we reference the svn directories in our
> releases?
>
> If people find a svn directory doesn't exist any more, they can just simply
> do one of the following:
>
> 1) Check our web site (We should add a "Source Code" to left panel on our
> home page)
> 2) Browse http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany (The proposed new
> subfolders are self-explanatory).
> 3) Ask on the Tuscany dev or user ML
>
> If we like the new structure technically, let's do it. +1 from me.
>
Looks like various people were in agreement to clean up our SVN
structure to make things a little more organized and bring related
resources together. I was thinking if we could do this and be ready
for ApacheCon (sometime before end of the month)...
Thoughts ?
--
Luciano Resende
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Who are the people that blindly check out our source code without reading
our web sites or mailing list? Do we reference the svn directories in our
releases?
If people find a svn directory doesn't exist any more, they can just simply
do one of the following:
1) Check our web site (We should add a "Source Code" to left panel on our
home page)
2) Browse http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany (The proposed new
subfolders are self-explanatory).
3) Ask on the Tuscany dev or user ML
If we like the new structure technically, let's do it. +1 from me.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:09 PM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The current SVN layout is a bit unconventional but its been like this
>>> for years now, I don't mind much what happens with the other sub
>>> projects as they don't have many users but there's lots of people who
>>> are used to where the SCA code is who get broken if we move it, so
>>> could we leave those as-is and just add a README at the top level
>>> documenting what all the SVN folders are for?
>>>
>>
>> Being broken for years it's not a reason not to fix it now. I have
>> gotten feedback from various people that the structure is
>> unconventional and hard to navigate trough. Even I have problems these
>> days trying to find things on the svn. The reorganization would also
>> make more clear what sub-projects are present in Tuscany and would
>> group together all it's related artifacts, branches and tags, making
>> it much easier for new members to find the places that interest them.
>>
>> As for getting it broken, I was planning to send detailed notification
>> to both user and dev list, and post some instructions on the blog on
>> how the changes affects current Tuscany contributors and how they can
>> use svn to redirect their local checkouts to the new code location.
>>
>> Also, from this discussion thread, it looks like the community was
>> getting consensus on what and how to do it... with other members
>> volunteering to help with the efforts.
>>
>
> Its not broken, what we have works. If we move the SCA locations we
> will break people. Emailing the mailing lists wont change that as not
> everyone reads the lists regularly and IIRC when moving from the
> incubator svn the svn redirects didn't work well.
>
> We could simplify the current layout a bit by tidying
> up/rearranging/deleting some files and folders and that would be good
> to do. But some things such as the tags we can't move without breaking
> lots of historical links in documentation emails, articles etc.
>
> How about starting with small steps by tidying up the easy things
> first which we can change without breaking anything and seeing what
> sort of improvement that gives?
>
> ...ant