lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Garrett Rooney <>
Subject Re: Migration to SVN?
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:51:20 GMT
Doug Cutting wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> The "least effort" way of doing that would be to include both the core 
>> and sandbox under the same trunk, but again, that implies that you 
>> ALWAYS tag and branch them together, and sometimes you may not want to 
>> do that.
> I think we should always branch these together.  To my thinking, the 
> distinction between "core" and "sandbox" is primarily be one of 
> packaging: the core should be separate jar, as should each of the 
> sandbox elements.  But all should be released and tested as a unit, to 
> ensure compatibility.
> I think the term "sandbox" is misleading and has outlived its 
> usefulness.  We should probably rename this to something like "utils" or 
> "optional".  These should be treated much like Ant's optional tasks: 
> package them as separate jars, segregate their documentation, but don't 
> branch them separately.  Perhaps we should also make it so that a failed 
> sandbox build or unit test does not stop a build: the quality guarantee 
> need not be as high for sandbox items.

If that's the case then I'd suggest just moving them to a subdirectory 
of the lucene trunk, and stop maintaining the arbitrary separation 
entirely.  The layout would be something like:

         /* regular stuff in lucene source tree goes here... */

I'm not sure how easy it would be to make the conversion from CVS to SVN 
in this form, but you can certainly migrate to this kind of layout soon 
after importing into SVN.  When any eventual move of lucene into a new 
top level project happens the whole jakarta/lucene directory would be 
moved to asf/search/lucene or something like that, bringing the utils 
directory along with it.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message