directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving ldapstuio and triplesec out of trunks ?
Date Wed, 03 Jan 2007 08:16:46 GMT
Alex Karasulu a écrit :

> Do we do this for shared and for clients and for the daemon stuff too?

hmmmm. Not sure. They are part of the server, aren't they?

I mean, if you modify them, and fail, the server won't compile anymore. 
It's not the case for ldapstudio and triplesec.

>
> Alex
>
> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> Alex Karasulu a écrit :
>>
>>> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> what about moving those guys down one level? It's really painfull 
>>>> to have to dowload mb of jars when you want to check out the trunks...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeap those jars are a problem.  How about we put them in a maven REPO?
>>
>>
>> no, this is not what I had in mind. The main problem is that 
>> ldapstudio and ADS are pretty much separate project. It's not really 
>> obvious that they must share the same trunk. Triplesec is also a 
>> separate project. And at some point, I'm not sure that it is a good 
>> idea to have a common pom.xml for all those guys in trunks, because 
>> them it will be mor and more difficult to guarantee that trunks is 
>> always 'buildable' at all time : too many people will risk to break 
>> the build with a bad commit, and it will take too long to build the 
>> whole project before committing.
>>
>>>
>>>> We could have such a structure :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah we were using this structure except we were calling trunks -> 
>>> trunk instead.  Then someone had the idea of keeping all trunks 
>>> together in a trunks directory.
>>
>>
>> I think it made sense when it was about ads itself. Now with 
>> ldapstudio representing half the size of ADS itself, and triplesec 
>> being a fat baby too, I'm not sure it worth it anymore.
>>
>>>
>>> I think this was Enrique's idea.  Perhaps he can elaborate on why we 
>>> did this.  I no longer remember why but just got used to this 
>>> configuration.
>>
>>
>> The 'why' should remain history, at this point. What was good a year 
>> ago may not be good now, IMHO. The separation could make sense now, 
>> and we may go back to a grand-reunification in one year, I don't 
>> know. Right now, my guts ask for a little separation, like what we 
>> did for MINA (not that I want ldapstudio to become a TLP :).
>>
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message