geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Module restructure
Date Mon, 30 May 2005 18:18:47 GMT
I'm too dim to figure out how, because no matter what, since there is  
no notion of a tag or branch, no matter how you slice and dice,  
either you branch to a different root when you cut a version, or you  
have to get the whole history anytime you checkout anything...

geir

On May 28, 2005, at 11:25 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:



> Actually, SVN's repo for geronimo could have been set up in a  
> modular approach instead of a monolithic trunk, and act similarly  
> to CVS.
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 5/28/2005 7:10 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On May 27, 2005, at 7:46 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:38 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeremy Boynes wrote, On 5/27/2005 7:26 PM:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Blevins wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This one
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  ../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
>>>>>>>>  ../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would we have two versions of transaction?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I actually think there are going to be additional ones but was   
>>>>> keeping it simple to indicate that "stable" came higher up  
>>>>> than  "transaction". Ultimately we might end up with  
>>>>> (hypothetically)
>>>>>
>>>>> .../geronimo/stable/1.0/modules/transaction
>>>>> .../geronimo/stable/1.2/modules/transaction
>>>>> .../geronimo/stable/2.0/modules/transaction
>>>>> .../geronimo/unstable/1.3/modules/transaction
>>>>> .../geronimo/unstable/2.1/modules/transaction
>>>>>
>>>>> Where, for example, 1.x is J2EE1.4 requiring JDK1.4 and 2.x is   
>>>>> J2EE1.5 requiring JDK1.5.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't particularly care for odd/even designations for stable/  
>>>> unstable.  Maybe that was a coincidence in your example.  We  
>>>> can  easily support your scenario and keep w/ standard SVN usage  
>>>> by doing:
>>>>
>>>> geronimo/transaction/branches
>>>> geronimo/transaction/tags/1_0
>>>> geronimo/transaction/tags/1_2
>>>> geronimo/transaction/tags/1_3
>>>> geronimo/transaction/tags/2_0
>>>> geronimo/transaction/tags/2_3
>>>> geronimo/transaction/trunk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem here is when you do a co of geronimo/ to get all the   
>>> modules, you get a major hose of bits... everything that was ever  
>>> done.
>>>
>>> I hate to say it (and Fitz will prollie flog me with a trout...)  
>>> but  I can now identify one feature of CVS that I miss...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Boy, I'm glad you said that.  I gotta say, I kinda miss CVS.
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Jeff Genender
> http://geronimo.apache.org
>
>
>
>

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message