geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: private repo in svn questions...
Date Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:58:51 GMT

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


Mime
View raw message