geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: private repo in svn questions...
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:16:03 GMT


Joe Bohn wrote:
> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>> In order to get the build to work with my use of nexus I've added the 
>>> trunk svn repo (server/trunk/repository) to the nexus repositories.
>>>
>>> This makes me wonder if we should just set up a single repo in svn 
>>> and put all our private builds there rather than having 
>>> branch-specific repos.  Would this result in more or less or the same 
>>> load on the svn server?
>>
>> Seems that moving the artifacts out into a unique svn branch (from 
>> geronimo/server/trunk/repository to geronimo/private/repo) would 
>> increase the load, as now every server build would be hitting the svn 
>> repo for artifacts (instead of just the /samples or /plugins builds.)
> 
> I think there is value in having all of the required elements for a G 
> release in one svn branch.  It keeps everything together when we release 
> in the tag.  How would we manage the artifacts if there were in a unique 
> svn branch without the release process?  I know we don't exactly release 
> these artifacts as the specified versions - but we implicitly release 
> them when we create the Geronimo release.  Would they ever move to a tag 
> if they were in a unique svn?
> 
>>
>>>
>>> I also wonder if our policy of patching apache projects and coming up 
>>> with our own psuedo releases is really the best idea or if we should 
>>> just copy their code over in svn and build it more directly.
>>>
>>
>> I could go either way on this.  I would like to see us at least 
>> check-in a tar/zip of the source for the patched artifacts into a 
>> branch, to make it easier to reproduce patched builds if needed (and 
>> so end users can rebuild everything if needed or used the patched 
>> source in a debugger.)
> 
> I guess the benefit of including all the code in our svn would be that a 
> user could easily debug the code if necessary.  But I'm nervous that the 
> changes might be difficult to track and migrate to newer releases 
> without the patch (and an optional patch can be easily 
> ignored/forgotten).  So I think I favor the process as it is today.  I 
> think we really need to work harder to remove these private builds.

I meant the patch file(s) + source tar/zip.  Having the patched source 
would help debug and patch future problems.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> I also discovered a couple of weeks back that the lack of poms in 
>>> this repo was causing significant build delays while maven was 
>>> looking everywhere it could think of for them so I added them when I 
>>> could easily find them in the artifacts.  I think we should add them 
>>> for the other artifacts as well.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message