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: domain of jason.dillon@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.192 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer:sender;
        b=Tl3wdbTNlo/weRfoyR/ZUaBJofsqdUHv02IcQ4usgo/zp7W4d/38sjmtHd3eQ9GfkaUppjXQ4kjKjU7So7UxzWMXCeMa4Vh35GqvYpbzo6MF4QxNxOYPD0cVS0ZHF/0KQgTfkyLWBwZ8/ZUGuspeQtgTk0XwP/WaKnBVLMCN+qg=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <6639285A-DAA3-476B-B077-D9234690407F@yahoo.com>
References: <20060901194837.63552.qmail@web31711.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <8C483018-0B84-4953-AA65-0A8DEDE5C168@planet57.com>
 <6639285A-DAA3-476B-B077-D9234690407F@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <667109B5-1C00-4EB1-A22D-776B871E4CA6@planet57.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r437291 - in /geronimo/server/trunk: bootstrap
 bootstrap.bat bootstrap.xml
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:55:18 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Sender: Jason Dillon <jason.dillon@gmail.com>

On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:24 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> I think that the current bootstrap behavior is necessary for the  
> reasons jason has stated however I think it should be named  
> something else so people who just want to build g. won't be tempted  
> to use it -- like
> advanced-ultra-clean-build
>
> or
>
> bootstrap-with-new-mvn-repo

Um, the "default" for bootstrap is that it will nuke your repo at the  
moment... its not the only thing that it does.  Dunno how many times  
I'm gonna have to say it before it starts to click.


> I would really like a convenient way to compile g + openejb  
> together as we had with the m1 build.  I still find most of my  
> changes affect both projects :-((((.  Jason, can you come up with a  
> good way to do this?  I don't really understand your suggestion  
> well enough to implement it.

I think its kinda retarded that we have two split codebases here.   
Either decouple them or make them one... but keeping them split into  
two pieces is asking for pain.

Maybe now that OpenEJB is on its way to apache, then svn:externals  
can be used to pull the source into our tree.

--jason