[Kolab-devel] CVS - New Modules and Tools (releng, devel, utils)

[Bernhard Reiter]

Hi Stuart,

On Wednesday 12 May 2004 13:46, Stuart Bingë wrote:
> On Monday 10 May 2004 20:53, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > Shouldn't this have gone as subdirectories under "server"?
> > This is the joined Kolab project CVS
> > and "doc" dealt with documents not related to a specific implementation.
>
> I wouldn't say they belong under the server module, as these three modules
> are not really Kolab (server) specific. These new modules are designed as
> central places for in-development code (devel), files relating to release
> engineering (releng) and miscellaneous utilities that are used in various
> modules (utils) - that's why there's a 'kolab' subdirectory in the devel
> module, as this is intended as the central place for in-progess development
> of the Kolab server itself.

But these tools are not for use on the Kolab KDE Client, the Kolab Concept
or the webpages as far as I understood it. 
This is is the case then they would all belong under server.

> With this new system, I would say that ultimately we could remove the
> server module, as all the sub-directories that are present there can go
> into release engineering folders under releng, whereas if we're actively
> developing portions of these modules we can create additional directories
> under devel for them. I would say that the doc module is already in a
> suitable place.

I might not fully grasp the CVS structure then.
Usually in CVS there are Branches and tags that would mark
development versions from stable source code lines.
So within the "devel" directory there will be stable and development
code in several CVS branches?
Why not call that directory "src" then?
	server/
	    src/
            releng/
            utils/
seems a good structure to me.
That would include moving the admin interface under src,
because we also want to have several branches on it, right?
Also we want to preserve the history of the KO'LAB_1_0 branch
so for CVS technical reason we have to think if doing
a server2 and moving stuff in there is better to not deal
with too much old branches in server.

> At least, that's the way I see it. I'm definitely not opposed to moving
> things around again if someone comes up with a better system, though.

What do you think about my suggestions? 
I am still trying to understand the structure.

We should start a webpage with it.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2145 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20040512/01f6766f/attachment.p7s>