sling-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Radu Cotescu <r...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [discussion][sling-aggregator] do we need deep file-system structures?
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:44:19 GMT
Hi Robert,

Well, how easy would it be to create folders from those group names and
then clone all modules belonging to a group into that folder? Any other
module could very well be cloned in the root folder (current working
directory). So I guess I'm more of a nested structure fan. :)

Thanks,
Radu

On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 10:53 Robert Munteanu <rombert@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Radu,
>
> On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 08:22 +0000, Radu Cotescu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > After using the Sling Aggregator [0] to clone all modules I was
> > wondering
> > if somebody else missed the previous "functional" structure of the
> > modules
> > or not. While I fully support the 1 module / SCM repository code
> > organisation, I think that sometimes it's beneficial to have a
> > reactor that
> > would build all related modules with one command.
>
> There are two issues in your email:
>
> - generating reactor poms
> - nested vs flat structure
>
> I think both are fine to have, if we agree on the structure.
>
> I have already added some basic support for grouping repositories, see
>
> https://github.com/apache/sling-aggregator/blob/81b3367168e97cb2702d960
> ff883bc1ca7425693/default.xml#L193-L214
> <https://github.com/apache/sling-aggregator/blob/81b3367168e97cb2702d960ff883bc1ca7425693/default.xml#L193-L214>
>
> The logic is 'look for the first segment in the repo name after org-
> apache-sling and create a group if two or more repos have it'.
>
> We can of course enhance it, but let's first lay down some grouping
> rules and decide where to place repositories outside of any groups.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message