geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Boynes <>
Subject Re: Module restructure
Date Fri, 27 May 2005 23:05:07 GMT
David Blevins wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
>>> final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
>>> branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
>> The names are just suggestions - "trunk", "head", "unstable",
>> whatever.
>> The important thing is that you can easily checkout and build each
>> tree on its own so we can't have both stable and unstable branches
>> of modules (e.g. transaction) under trunk.
> I think we are going to have a hard enough time managing and merging
> between stable/unstable branches of the code in general let alone at
> the submodule level.  I'd prefer to get used to that before trying it
> at the submodule level.

One of the reasons for going with a modular structure in the first place 
was to make the totality more manageable while still being able to 
develop each module. For small projects I would agree it is probably not 
worth it, but most large distributed projects have gone that way: look 
at HTTPD + mod_*, Tomcat + commons-*, Maven + plugins, Eclipse + 
plugins, ...

The community is asking for subsets of functionality - we should use the 
module structure to give it to them rather than waiting for a release at 
the global level (especially with the overhead of certification testing).


View raw message