On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 08:56, Florin Ciubotaru
<florinciu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Reviving the thread with a late -1.
Reviving this thread again after the release of 3.2.
I'd like to get this problem fixed, so here's a proposal:
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/tree/master/xwiki-platform-core/xwi…
becomes
https://github.com/xwiki/platform/tree/master/core/cache/api
The current strategy is to get longer and longer directory names, by
copying the parent directory name and adding a suffix to it. While
this keeps the current artifact ID in sync with the directory it sits
in, it creates redundancy and is much too verbose. Plus, it creates
the checkout problem on Windows.
The proposed strategy is to remove all redundancy and instead have the
artifact ID in sync with the directory structure starting from the git
repository root.
+1, I'm perfectly fine with the current strategy but I understand we
can't keep something that makes it a pain to contribute for Windows
users.
Still, there are a few things I'd like some feedback on:
1. Do we keep "xwiki" in the repository name or not?
a) The "xwiki" part of the artifact ID is found in the organization
name, so the repository name skips it: "platform", "rendering"...
b) The organization name isn't going to be found on the user's
filesystem, so it makes sense to keep it in the repository name:
"xwiki-platform", "xwiki-rendering"...
I think 1a is better, I doubt much people clone all the git
repositories whatever where they core from in the same place and they
probably will group them in a xwiki folder anyway so if since the
point of this proposal is to reduce names by removing useless
information we should definitely remove the organization part.
2. What do we do with the "core+tools" split of some of the repositories?
a) Keep it, which means that we'll not have 100% sync with some of the
artifact ID, since "core" is not part of the artifactIds.
b) Keep it and change the artifactIds of the core modules to include it
c) Move the "core" modules to the root of the repository, keeping
"tools" grouped under the tools subdirectory
The way you exposed your proposal 2c seems the best choice to me too.
Personally, I'm:
* +1 for 1a, +0 for 1b; the argument for b is not really valid, since
users can change the directory name where their clone is going to be
created, and most developers usually create a top level directory to
hold the XWiki repositories by themselves anyway
* -0 for 2a, since I'd like to have a clear and simple rule for
mapping artifact IDs to directories, without having to add an
"...except if the directory is named core..." exception to this rule;
-0 for 2b, since I prefer not to change artifact IDs so often between
versions; +1 for 2c, since it's going to bring the most important
modules closer to the root.
So, the one clear and simple rule to follow for naming directories and
artifacts is:
Assuming you checked out the XWiki repositories in a common folder
called "xwiki", then the artifactId of any pom.xml file is the same as
the path from the top "xwiki" directory to the current directory, with
dashes between the names.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Denis Gervalle
<dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote:
+0, using artifactid is longer, but a clear rule.
And you have
auto-completion and IDE, so why fear longer name ?
There an issue long paths on Windows as mentioned here:
http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/Unable-to-clone-platform-repository-on-wi…
Florin Ciubotaru
Denis
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 15:49, Marius Dumitru Florea <
mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Same as Sergiu, I prefer shorter names but
artifactId is not that bad. So
0.
Thanks,
Marius
On 04/05/2011 02:19 PM, Jerome Velociter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu<sergiu(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>> On 04/05/2011 11:03 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> The proposal is to use artifactid as directory names.
>>>
>>> Note that this is what I did for commons and rendering when I did the
move to top level project. You can check how it looks like here:
>>>
http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/commons/
>>>
http://svn.xwiki.org/svnroot/xwiki/rendering/
>>>
>>> I suggest we keep one strategy only for consistency.
>>>
>>> Some discussion here too:
>>>
http://www.sonatype.com/people/2011/01/maven-tip-project-directories-and-ar…
>>>
>>> I know there are some cons (see my comment in the link above) but
overall I find it simple to implement and with autocompletion not such a
big
issue.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> 0. I'd prefer shorter names, but I don't have a strong preference for
>> it. Either way works.
>
> Same as Sergiu, I would prefer shorter names ; but no strong feelings
either.
> 0
>
> Jerome
>
>>
>>> If you don't like this then please propose an alternative solution
and
remember that we'll need to refactor commons
and rendering in this case
too.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sergiu Dumitriu
>>
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
>> _______________________________________________
>> devs mailing list
>> devs(a)xwiki.org
>>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> devs(a)xwiki.org
>
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Denis Gervalle
SOFTEC sa - CEO
eGuilde sarl - CTO
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne