Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <44DB9DB0.5010207@hogstrom.org>
References: <AE3954E7-43BB-45E4-A28A-3A144BEECC60@iq80.com>
 <44DB37CB.4040405@hogstrom.org>
 <04A13029-9D57-4D02-9E15-D7E84B764AC3@planet57.com>
 <44DB9DB0.5010207@hogstrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <B433212B-B0FB-484F-8F55-CF4B3A0C5F60@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: Independently version transaction and connector
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:09:27 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

A BIG +1 to that

-dain

On Aug 10, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> This is what I meant by "top-level"
>
> Something like:
>
> geronimo/
>          devtools/
>          daytrader/
>          transaction/
>          connector/
>          server/
>          xbean/
>          plugins/
>
> Then have branch, tags and trunk under them.  I think this makes a  
> lot of sense.
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> Before we start moving components into separate trees, I hope we  
>> can think ahead a bit and consider a plan for how to organize  
>> chunks of components into a small set of trees.  I think that if  
>> we just pluck them off one by one as peers to trunk that we will  
>> end up with a messy svn repo.  I'd like to see those components  
>> organized into categories within our repo.
>> I'd also like to eventually do away with the top-level /trunk, / 
>> tags and /branches... and instead move that into a top-level  
>> tree... very similar to how the maven repo is:
>>    http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/
>> --jason
>> On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:42 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> I can see the difficulty pointed out by Jason and the benefit  
>>> raised by Dain.  I've never liked versioning parts of Geronimo  
>>> that rarely change and am all for making things more consumable  
>>> externally.
>>>
>>> The proposal as it stands is fairly generic.  Is the idea to  
>>> relocate Tx Manager and Connector to be top-level projects  
>>> withing Geronimo and build separately or some kind of hybrid in  
>>> the current tree.  If we are going to release them independently  
>>> then I think they should be top-level in Geronimo (and I know  
>>> thats a lot more work).
>>>
>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>> What do everyone think about changing the transaction and  
>>>> connector modules to be versioned independently of the main  
>>>> Geronimo server?
>>>> -dain