ace-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Bakker (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACE-316) Layout the OBR filesystem differently.
Date Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:20:16 GMT


Paul Bakker commented on ACE-316:

I still don't really have a feeling how much development time a move to R5 repositories would
cost, so it's hard to decide if this is or isn't something we should do. 
Having support for the requirements model seems interesting, ACE could be a lot smarter about
selecting the correct artefacts when creating features/distributions. On the other hand you
could argue that this is really not something that should be done by a provisioning server,
but should be done development time. In that case it would make sense to be able to upload
packages with a set of artefacts to ACE instead of single bundles.

Before starting work on the other issues it would be good to spend some time to investigate
what should be done exactly if we would move to R5 repositories.
> Layout the OBR filesystem differently.
> --------------------------------------
>                 Key: ACE-316
>                 URL:
>             Project: ACE
>          Issue Type: Question
>          Components: OBR
>            Reporter: Marcel Offermans
>            Assignee: Bram de Kruijff
> Currently, the OBR uses a single folder to store all artifacts. That does not scale too
well as OS specific directory limits might interfere. We should implement a more hierarchical
storage format, such as: <BSN>/<version> or even one where each part of the BSN
becomes a folder.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message