Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tuscany.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of enjoyjava@gmail.com designates
 209.85.221.172 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority
         :importance:x-mailer:x-mimeole;
        b=AjC3KFfgUeTZijiEkF3dFu+vuDvgV3dZzMFtQYCfLqkenCkbgBV9AsN05wl45WeQ0w
         eXlu3IuWxgFemZqd7hRfG0B9UcXyxK8u09wKeNI2GzqYOwKB7XdQLXtxdUZXoy+/Igvj
         hNzfulcDgucLtxDIKzZxiBHW90vV7E7R5sj64=
Message-ID: <E70B79DFD2F44FF991A6673BBAEC3A92@rfengt61p>
From: "Raymond Feng" <enjoyjava@gmail.com>
To: <antelder@apache.org>,
	<dev@tuscany.apache.org>
References: <5a75db780909222031o213d3a93j9b7df9a42d606c2f@mail.gmail.com>
 <c0c051b50909230448x2caf08a8jfa036976ae011321@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a75db780909230840v156d3316qfc3d1bfafde3b9dc@mail.gmail.com>
 <c0c051b50909231023p1568d11fs918b8803d40eed86@mail.gmail.com>
 <98410DEB2D2E428A9B2651F22963E9AE@rfengt61p>
 <5a75db780909231446nf4bd33ere4a3fa49ac9239c2@mail.gmail.com>
 <4ABDACD8.6060304@apache.org>
 <5a75db780909261044v787e0bm48fab41d799da5a@mail.gmail.com>
 <71e1b5740909292250s344d51e6lbdda81c2d25f11bf@mail.gmail.com>
 <5a75db780909301311k28365574ue1ed87bd7dc6fea@mail.gmail.com>
 <71e1b5740909302309w7dd32d77gfc9136bcbbc2c6e7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <71e1b5740909302309w7dd32d77gfc9136bcbbc2c6e7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:30:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

Who are the people that blindly check out our source code without reading 
our web sites or mailing list? Do we reference the svn directories in our 
releases?

If people find a svn directory doesn't exist any more, they can just simply 
do one of the following:

1) Check our web site (We should add a "Source Code" to left panel on our 
home page)
2) Browse http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany (The proposed new 
subfolders are self-explanatory).
3) Ask on the Tuscany dev or user ML

If we like the new structure technically, let's do it. +1 from me.

Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <antelder@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:09 PM
To: <dev@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The current SVN layout is a bit unconventional but its been like this
>>> for years now, I don't mind much what happens with the other sub
>>> projects as they don't have many users but there's lots of people who
>>> are used to where the SCA code is who get broken if we move it, so
>>> could we leave those as-is and just add a README at the top level
>>> documenting what all the SVN folders are for?
>>>
>>
>> Being broken for years it's not a reason not to fix it now. I have
>> gotten feedback from various people that the structure is
>> unconventional and hard to navigate trough. Even I have problems these
>> days trying to find things on the svn. The reorganization would also
>> make more clear what sub-projects are present in Tuscany and would
>> group together all it's related artifacts, branches and tags, making
>> it much easier for new members to find the places that interest them.
>>
>> As for getting it broken, I was planning to send detailed notification
>> to both user and dev list, and post some instructions on the blog on
>> how the changes affects current Tuscany contributors and how they can
>> use svn to redirect their local checkouts to the new code location.
>>
>> Also, from this discussion thread, it looks like the community was
>> getting consensus on what and how to do it...  with other members
>> volunteering to help with the efforts.
>>
>
> Its not broken, what we have works. If we move the SCA locations we
> will break people. Emailing the mailing lists wont change that as not
> everyone reads the lists regularly and IIRC when moving from the
> incubator svn the svn redirects didn't work well.
>
> We could simplify the current layout a bit by tidying
> up/rearranging/deleting some files and folders and that would be good
> to do. But some things such as the tags we can't move without breaking
> lots of historical links in documentation emails, articles etc.
>
> How about starting with small steps by tidying up the easy things
> first which we can change without breaking anything and seeing what
> sort of improvement that gives?
>
>   ...ant