|Reorganization of the IMP SVN repository on eclipse.org [message #576463]
||Thu, 03 September 2009 15:00
| Robert M. Fuhrer
Registered: July 2009
For those that don't subscribe to the mailing list, we've reorganized
the repository structure to adhere to the common convention of having
trunk, tags, branches at the top level, and individual plugin projects
underneath that, rather than the other way around (as it was before).
I believe you should be able to continue to use your existing workspaces
as they are, but it might be better to rebuild from a fresh drop.
Here's the note I posted to the imp-dev mailing list. For more details
and subsequent follow-ups, see the mailing list archives.
While warming up for the next release, I finally got around to
reorganizing the IMP SVN repository. The new organization should make
the most common case (checking out HEAD of a set of projects on the
trunk) much simpler, and aligns the repository with the conventional
structure used by other projects.
I believe you should be able to continue to use your existing
workspaces, but it might be sensible to start fresh to avoid confusion.
So, instead of:
the repository now looks like this:
branch1 - most of these were IMP-wide branches
tag1 - these were all per-plugin release
tags (e.g. "release-0.1.1")
plugin1 - all of these are now adjacent (yay!)
N.B.: The organization of the "tags" folder above reflects the fact that
the all of the existing tags were per-plugin, rather than per-feature or
IMP-wide. In other words, it didn't make sense to group the 0.1.1's (for
instance) together by putting the 0.1.1 at the top level of the "tags"
We now need to decide how to tag the projects on new releases.
I'm leaning toward tagging all of a feature's plugin projects with the
feature's version number.
Robert M. Fuhrer
Research Staff Member
Programming Technologies Dept.
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
IDE Meta-tooling Platform Project Lead (http://www.eclipse.org/imp)
X10: Productive High-Performance Parallel Programming (http://x10-lang.org)
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01472 seconds