geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: private repo in svn questions...
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:35:14 GMT
I delete my local m2 repo at least once a week (usually when switching 
between 2.1.4 and 2.2 builds to ensure truly clean builds.)

Also, the automated 2.0/2.1/trunk builds that run several times a day 
always use a clean m2 repo.

Seems that we would be increasing the load on just to 
make it easier for a few people who want to use Nexus....


David Jencks wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:41 AM, 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 don't understand your reasoning here.  Right now anyone working with 
> any source version of geronimo such as trunk is going to check out the 
> artifacts they need whether or not they have other copies on their local 
> system and every time they do svn up they will be hitting the svn repo.  
> If they are in one svn location then maven will fetch them once per 
> machine no matter how many branches and copies are checked out.  I don't 
> know which results in more svn server load, but I can imagine that 
> either choice is less load.
> I may not have made it clear that if you use nexus you can't build 
> geronimo at all unless you tell nexus where to get the artifacts that 
> are in server/trunk/repository.  I first tried listing my local checkout 
> as a file system repo but couldn't get that to work: using the svn repo 
> did work.
>>> 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 scenarios like this are strong arguments for distributed version 
> control systems like svk and git.
>>> 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
> thanks
> david jencks

View raw message