Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28699 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2006 14:59:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jul 2006 14:59:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 47198 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2006 14:59:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-activemq-users-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 47182 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jul 2006 14:59:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact activemq-users-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 47135 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jul 2006 14:59:10 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:59:10 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of sanjiv.jivan@gmail.com designates 64.233.166.180 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.166.180] (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (64.233.166.180) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:59:09 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b36so248404pyb for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:58:48 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=IKZQLYt7SSHGYO1mkqugrYNisMUduWHWRp1rmBRc2tuDJSUmfPAEbvHnwXnHJ5wx0rId5pSw7928cMFdCk1blvyIubZNz4sRQ1jNeUMoPHDtr+KglB1EKF52had1Smj9AuPuG3ikeWNCZuLUt/FmHo5wYoVPwwDzvXWU9PqJ1yk= Received: by 10.35.121.9 with SMTP id y9mr13280050pym; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.114.7 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:58:48 -0400 From: "Sanjiv Jivan" To: activemq-users@geronimo.apache.org Subject: ActiveMQ svn directory organization question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_149304_21075112.1154012328542" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N ------=_Part_149304_21075112.1154012328542 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Off topic, but in looking at the Active MQ SVN directory structure with the multiple modules and all, I was wondering what the pro's on con's are in 1) using one top level "trunk" and "branch" directory with all the modules going under "trunk" versus 2) having each module have its own "trunk" and "branck" sub directory as described here : http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.branchmerge.using What criteria did Active MQ use to go with approach 1). Was it because the maven directory layout is an issue with approach 2? Thanks, Sanjiv ------=_Part_149304_21075112.1154012328542--