Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:06:52 -0400
From: Jim Waldo <Jim.Waldo@sun.com>
Subject: Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
In-reply-to: <DE3EBF72-2D2F-466E-AE07-1E7AE8F52204@sun.com>
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-id: <8FB97BFC-4907-4790-BB8A-1C6CBE3F929C@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <510143ac0705260423w30d4d38fnfe8e9ab2b7e80e97@mail.gmail.com>
 <465AEAC5.7020508@cheiron.org> <130D25BC-2D93-4184-B5AD-9AE5281A05D4@sun.com>
 <465D2909.70308@cheiron.org>
 <510143ac0705300314y4c7afa4dnbcaf3fd08d4d24e3@mail.gmail.com>
 <CCA97E42-45ED-4F6E-AC37-5BF4E49733A8@sun.com> <465DC10F.6070608@cheiron.org>
 <F27893DF-8C12-4F78-B090-65FACD7B04AB@sun.com>
 <DE3EBF72-2D2F-466E-AE07-1E7AE8F52204@sun.com>

+1

Jim Waldo

On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Jim Hurley wrote:

> Hi all-
>
> Not sure if there was consensus on this...   so just doing a quick
> double check that we've got agreement.  Based on most of the
> responses, folks seemed to support Frank's proposal of sticking
> with the JTSK repository structure (and moving serviceui to fit in).
>
> There was an alternate structure proposed (adding one additional
> level of src) by Craig Russell:
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-river-dev/ 
> 200705.mbox/%3c01F7F559-6C4A-48B4-A518-2512D8BE195F@SUN.com%3e>
>
> That's certainly a reasonable idea, but doing so will break the
> build (whether that would need to get fixed prior to or after  
> import is
> another question).
>
> So...  let's approach it this way --  our default plan is to stick
> with the jtsk repository for initial import.  If you agree, feel
> free to respond with a +1 or just stay happily silent.  If you're
> against this approach (and prefer Craig's proposal or another),
> please respond with a -1 (and your ideas).
>
> We're anxious to get this in (today if possible) -- so **please**
> give it some immediate consideration.
>
> thanks much -Jim
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Frank Barnaby wrote:
> :
>> :
>> While we're on the subject, I have a question regarding the SVN  
>> repository
>> structure.  Once we're ready to upload to SVN, we're going to need  
>> a plan
>> for the repository layout or does such a plan already exist?  If  
>> not, I'd
>> imagine the JTSK repository would basically look like the following:
>>
>> 	trunk/jtsk/
>> 		LICENSE
>> 		NOTICE
>> 		build.xml
>> 		build_common.xml
>> 		doc/
>> 		src/
>>
>> Or should we be more consistent with the current serviceui  
>> repository?
>>
>> 	trunk/serviceui/
>> 		LICENSE
>> 		NOTICE
>> 		doc/
>> 		com/
>> 		net/
>>
>> If it's decided the the jtsk repository is to be consistent with  
>> the serviceui
>> repository (ie, move jtsk/src/* up one level), the ant scripts  
>> will be initially
>> broken but could be fixed in short order as one of the initial  
>> development tasks.
>>
>> Alternatively, the serviceui repository could be changed to be  
>> consistent with
>> the jtsk repository...  At first glance, this approach seems like  
>> it would be
>> more straight forward.
>