Mailing-List: contact abdera-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <200606171412.k5HECcbD014153@mail.e-wire.net.au>
Reply-To: <brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au>
From: "Gav...." <brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au>
To: <abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Now that the code's in
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:16:32 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <7edfeeef0606170627w2e058905pd2f22f74ac43d13b@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Index: AcaSEUI869esJZ9ISny8HL3w1b4CkQABEI0g


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rooneg@gmail.com [mailto:rooneg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Garrett
> Rooney
> Sent: Saturday, 17 June 2006 9:27 PM
> To: abdera-dev@incubator.apache.org; brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au
> Subject: Re: Now that the code's in
> 
> On 6/17/06, Gav.... <brightoncomputers@brightontown.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > It may just be these projects, but it seems to me that the layout of the
> > Repository here is a little weird.
> >
> > I mean, why have two trunks ? , Can the website not be part of the same
> > trunk, it would make for easier maintenance and deployment in the
> > Future, ease of use and readability for users etc also.
> 
> I'm not clear how putting the web site in with the source has anything
> to do with deployment...  The main reason I saw in keeping them
> separate is that eventually I see us as having multiple
> implementations of Abdera in different languages, and I don't see any
> need to force people to check out all of them in order to get the
> parts they want.

That's fine. Will the website become i18n compliant to cope with the
documentation needed for these languages?

> 
> > Also, I don't think that anything above 'trunk' (either one) should be
> > Available to the general dev/user community. Not a good idea to let
> > Everyone loose with branches etc.
> >
> > Instructions should then be put on the website that devs/users can
> download
> > The latest SVN from 'Trunk', not root.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here.  The instructions do say they should
> check out the trunk, and never (that I'm aware of) the root.
> 
> > New users might like to see
> >
> > 'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/ > abdera' as
> it is
> > Currently on the website so they don't have to run off and find the
> > appropriate command. If it were reorganised into one trunk this would be
> 
> Where on the website do you see that?

I don't see it at all, that's why I said users 'might like to see'. The only
Reference to the repository is on faq.html in the building Abdera section
which points to the root - i.e. Both trunks and branches etc. (Or the direct
link to same from the navigation)

"The current source for Abdera is located in the Apache Incubator Subversion
repository (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/)"

This is obviously fine if everyone is happy that two trunks are to exist
beneath it and also that branches are available to all.

The main point was that the SVN command 'svn co ...' is not on the website
And might be a good idea so people get used to using SVN rather than through
The browser.


> 
> > 'svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/trunk > abdera'
> > And would contain both the java and site trees in one, but all branches
> > And other unneeded files/directories would be ignored and reserved for
> > Only committer use. Otherwise I reckon 'svn revert' will become someones
> > Best friend.
> 
> Uhh, I really think you're heading off in some strange direction with
> your assumptions.  Nothing that I can find suggests anyone checking
> out anything other than the specific branches they care about (the
> trunk of the java tree, the trunk of the site, etc).

Probably, I was changing my SVN command example to what would be used in
both trunks were merged. I see you think there is no need to do that.

As Forrest and Lenya are tools for building/maintaining websites and project
documentation, it makes sense that the websites generated are within the
same trunk as the core development code, I was just using them as an example
Of the layout that could be used here. I can see here that there will be
those that just want to get on and code and not worry about the website at
all, and there will be those that will worry about the other or both, so I
can see where it makes sense to have a trunk for each. Some may then choose
to only download one trunk as they wish, but it would be nice if coders
could update the site with their changes and ideas etc.

> 
> > The snell_sandbox, is this for everyone to play with ? If so an idea
> > I bring from Forrest etc is the Whiteboard, call it the Sandbox if you
> > Like, but is housed not in a branch, but as a sub-dir of trunk, that
> > Way everyone gets to play, add there own whiteboard/sandbox sub-
> projects.
> > Eventually they either get deleted or merged into the core, or a plugin,
> > whatever.
> 
> I suspect James is using that branch to experiment on.  If people have
> a problem with that we can certainly have him move that work into the
> trunk, but I personally don't see what the issue is.

The Issue is not with the experiment, merely that it would have to move if
branches themselves were made non-public as I suggested earlier in the post.
There is no issue if you are happy with branches being available to all. My
experience so far has been that branches remained exclusive to committers
only, hence the suggestion.

Gav...

> 
> -garrett
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/368 - Release Date: 6/16/2006