wicket-stuff / source

[Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>]

Hi,
 
i volunteered for wicket-stuff maintainer (whatever i thought about this :O
) and just browsed through the wicket stuff svn repo and i think we really
need a better organisation of this. Currently we have
 
/branches <- helds 1.1, 1.3, and 1.2, branch as well as /vendor (whatever
this is for) and a (!) wicket-stuff directory...
/tags <- dont know what this is for, why we have it ?
/trunk <- here we have dev. version of every stuff thing there, at various
levels, some are wicket 1.1, some wicket 1.2, some 2.0.... 
 
Wouldnt a organisation scheme of this be better? (at least i really have
poblems browsing there and finding right things...)
 
/Wicket_1_0
/Wicket_1_1
/Wicket_1_2
/Wicket_1_3
/Wicket_2_0
 
with a corresponding scheme of 
/releases/
/trunk/ 
 
under every node ? - we might want to start this from scratch and have all
current existing things put into a root-node "archiv" or sth like that, so
we only have "living" projects put into the new, ordered structure.
 
Im quite new to SVN, however, would this type of reorganisation be possible?
And what do you think about it?
 
Best Regards,
 
Korbinian
 
PS: who is mostly responsible for wicket-stuff ?

Re: AW: AW: wicket-stuff / source

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

> > The only way to attract more users and make it easier for
> > them is to release often, and announce the releases. Building
> > directly from SVN/CVS is typically not for the faint of heart.
>
> So you suggest to have an alternate to the current SVN repo?

No, I suggest to build releases for the 1.2 compatible projects and
make them available for download from the sf.net download section, and
upload them to the main maven repository.

Subversion is for storing versions of code. Until a project has
received a formal release, a lot of users will not even look at it,
because they don't like to have to jump through build scripts, unit
tests and so forth to make it work. A release gives the assumed
security of at least a working build and non-failing unit tests, hence
a 'quality' bumper sticker. Of course there are exceptions to this
rule (Johan is one of them), but most developers only use released
software.

As for developing, I suggest instead of fixing all projects or try to
make the repo better structured, adopt one project, bring it up to
date, build a release, upload it to ibiblio, build the site, upload
the site, and announce the release. This gives the best visibility to
a project, and gives the greatest benefit.

Martijn

-- 
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.3 is as easy as 1-2-3. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org

AW: AW: wicket-stuff / source

[Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>]

Thank you for the link - made it clearer to me now. 

> > My intention is primarily to make it easier accessible to 
> attract more 
> > users there and to encourage people to give developed components to 
> > it, so wicket stuff would grow to a big content repository 
> where, with 
> > low effort and knowledge, everyone can find what he needs.
> 
> The only way to attract more users and make it easier for 
> them is to release often, and announce the releases. Building 
> directly from SVN/CVS is typically not for the faint of heart.

So you suggest to have an alternate to the current SVN repo? 

> [1] http://www.psc.edu/~semke/cvs_branches.html

Re: AW: wicket-stuff / source

[Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>]

On 12/10/06, Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > /tags <- dont know what this is for, why we have it ?
> > When you want to explicitly create a version without branching it.
> how is this useful? i mean code differs for branches - you cant have a thing
> that works in wicket 1.x and wicket 2.0 without changing the code.

To have a reference for a moment in time. Read about it (for cvs, but
holds with respect to conceptual stuff) here [1].

Taken from [1]:
> Tags
>     A tag can be used to name a particular revision of the code. This tag can
>     later be used to compare different revisions, to go back to an earlier version,
>     or to specify a place to create a branch.

In subversion, there is not a low-level distinction between a branch
and a tag, only the place. But as concepts they are very different and
serve different purposes. Tags are considered read-only. No commit
should be done to a tag. Branches are read/write.

> Ok - what way should they be asked? direct mail, or on a special list?

Wicket-user, wicket-dev, wicket-stuff-dev, wicket-stuff-user are a few
that come to mind. Pick one (I suggest wicket-user to begin with.
If/when the traffic gets to cumbersome, use the wicket-stuff lists).

> My intention is primarily to make it easier
> accessible to attract more users there and to encourage people to give
> developed components to it, so wicket stuff would grow to a big content
> repository where, with low effort and knowledge, everyone can find what he
> needs.

The only way to attract more users and make it easier for them is to
release often, and announce the releases. Building directly from
SVN/CVS is typically not for the faint of heart.

Martijn

[1] http://www.psc.edu/~semke/cvs_branches.html
-- 
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.3 is as easy as 1-2-3. Download Wicket now!
http://wicketframework.org

AW: wicket-stuff / source

[Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>]

 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > /tags <- dont know what this is for, why we have it ?
> 
> When you want to explicitly create a version without branching it.

how is this useful? i mean code differs for branches - you cant have a thing
that works in wicket 1.x and wicket 2.0 without changing the code.

> 
> > /trunk <- here we have dev. version of every stuff thing there, at 
> > various levels, some are wicket 1.1, some wicket 1.2, some 2.0....
> 
> Wicket stuff's trunk is meant to be in sync with Wicket's 
> trunk, so it trunk in wicket-stuff should ideally only 
> contain projects on 2.0. I have made a mild effort to update 
> projects for our branches (like moved a couple to 1.3 
> recently), but it wouldn't surprise me if I overlooked projects.

not to forget that many are not cared about anymore -
http://wicket-stuff.sourceforge.net/wiki-stuff/ProjectMaintainers gives a
bunch of "lonely" projects...

> 
> This is what the subversion documents call 'TTB' or Trunk 
> Tags Branches, and are considered best practices layout.

But as far as i know is a best practice for 1 ongoing dev project - we have
at least two (1.x and 2.0) dependency branches - or am I wrong here?

> 
> It's all possible. I'd say let the people who actually work 
> most with the repositories most (like the contrib-dojo guys) 
> have their say.
> Personally, I think what we have now is fine, as it is the 
> same as Wicket.

Ok - what way should they be asked? direct mail, or on a special list? - and
to wicket: i know that wicket is handled that way, but here we have many
many projects depending on some wicket-core version - personally i have
problems in seeing what is made for what version, when i just use the
website and browse the SVN. My intention is primarily to make it easier
accessible to attract more users there and to encourage people to give
developed components to it, so wicket stuff would grow to a big content
repository where, with low effort and knowledge, everyone can find what he
needs.

Best Regards,

Korbinian

Re: wicket-stuff / source

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

> /branches <- helds 1.1, 1.3, and 1.2, branch as well as /vendor (whatever
> this is for) and a (!) wicket-stuff directory...

Any branch goes if it makes sense to the people creating it. Every now
and then, it would be good if people delete obsolete branches again
(if they are *very careful* about it of course).

> /tags <- dont know what this is for, why we have it ?

When you want to explicitly create a version without branching it.

> /trunk <- here we have dev. version of every stuff thing there, at various
> levels, some are wicket 1.1, some wicket 1.2, some 2.0....

Wicket stuff's trunk is meant to be in sync with Wicket's trunk, so it
trunk in wicket-stuff should ideally only contain projects on 2.0. I
have made a mild effort to update projects for our branches (like
moved a couple to 1.3 recently), but it wouldn't surprise me if I
overlooked projects.

This is what the subversion documents call 'TTB' or Trunk Tags
Branches, and are considered best practices layout.

> Wouldnt a organisation scheme of this be better? (at least i really have
> poblems browsing there and finding right things...)
>
> /Wicket_1_0
> /Wicket_1_1
> /Wicket_1_2
> /Wicket_1_3
> /Wicket_2_0
>
> with a corresponding scheme of
> /releases/
> /trunk/
>
> under every node ? - we might want to start this from scratch and have all
> current existing things put into a root-node "archiv" or sth like that, so
> we only have "living" projects put into the new, ordered structure.
>
> Im quite new to SVN, however, would this type of reorganisation be possible?
> And what do you think about it?


It's all possible. I'd say let the people who actually work most with
the repositories most (like the contrib-dojo guys) have their say.
Personally, I think what we have now is fine, as it is the same as
Wicket.

Eelco