RichFaces 4.0: SVN repository layout

[nbelaevski]

Hello,

We've relocated RF 4.0 modules according to new SVN repository layout (see RichFaces40BuildSystem wiki article for more information). Also we are supporting 3.3.X modules, so SVN repository currently hosts both layouts: new and old.

Here is the current list of folders http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/richfaces/:

Legacy layout folders:
- branches - common SVN folder
- tags - common SVN folder
- trunk - common SVN folder
- management - storage of unversioned information about the project (e.g. requirement specification, planning documents; designs etc.)

New layout folders (content is evident from the folder name, each folder has (or will have soon) nested trunk/branches/tags). Actually, new layout is a copy of standard SVN layout extended with additional root folders:

- cdk
- docs
- examples
- examples-sandbox
- framework
- ui

The question is how to make it more suitable for the users. Variants:
1) New SVN repository

Pros: clean variant.
Cons: a) extra work for JBoss admins
b) no single link for project SVN sources.

2) "attic" folder for all non-4.0 content

Pros:
Cons: a) still lot of work - update Hudson configuration, public information, etc.
b) 3.3.x is not outdated after 4.0 release, so "attic" doesn't seem a good place for it

So, what do you think? Suggestions are highly welcome.

[abelevich]

I think we should create new repo

[jbalunas]

Hi Nick - Great write up!

One problem with a new repository is how to name it, although having a new root directory posses the same problem - I do not like "attic" ;-) but it is easier to name a new base directory than a repo.

The hudson configuration issues would be the same in both cases.

The administration cons of a new repo should not be overlooked. There would be issues with mailing lists, fisheye, jira, etc...

The new root directory for the 4.0 ( and future ) items does have some nice benefits too. It does not have the administration overhead discussed above is the main one. Plus having to point users to a new svn repo could cause more confusion than just keeping it the way it is now, or adopting a new root directory.

That said I my vote is for a new "root" directory. In fact naming it "root" is probably as good a name as I can think of right now.

So we would end up with

/branches
/tags
/management (although I would this moved somewhere )
/root ("base" might also be a good name)
---/cdk
---/docs
---/examples
---/example-sandbox
---/framework
---/ui

Thoughts?

[jbalunas]

This also brings up some svn house keeping items that I will create jira's for.

rf4_build branch can be removed
jsf2.0 branch should be moved to sandbox
example-data branch needs to moved somewhere
trunk can be removed

management directory needs to discussed - I think we should move this into "archive".

[nbelaevski]

Jay,

I like "root".

[jbalunas]

ok, lets give people some time to respond, but I like "root" as well.

If we don't hear any objections by Monday morning (your time) lets make this change. We'll need to update the hudson builds, and the wiki with this info.

Can you think of anywhere else?

[nbelaevski]

All modules were moved under "root" directory.

[jbalunas]

Nice! One place to download them all.

Sounds like something from lord of the rings ;-)