]
Nick Boldt commented on JBIDE-12475:
------------------------------------
[~maxandersen] Moved like this:
{code}
targetName="jbosstools-base"
target="base"
subdirs="common runtime tests usage" # space-separated list of child folders
#git move then filter as if a single component
mkdir ${target}; for d in ${subdirs}; do git mv ${d} ${target}/; done
git commit -m "move ${subdirs} into ${target}" . # check in moved files
# filter out all the subdirs we don't care about
git filter-branch --tag-name-filter cat --prune-empty --subdirectory-filter ${target} --
--all
{code}
Root pom shouldn't have a variable there -- wrong set of quotes used to echo to file
(using '' variables aren't expanded - need to use "" or omit). Fixed
now in the repo and should work in the script [1] for subsequent runs.
[1]
Split JBoss Tools into several functional groups of components for
migration to Github
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JBIDE-12475
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBIDE-12475
Project: Tools (JBoss Tools)
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Build/Releng
Affects Versions: 4.0.0.Alpha1
Reporter: Nick Boldt
Assignee: Nick Boldt
Fix For: 4.0.0.Beta1
Attachments: Components-Final .gliffy, Components-Final .png,
git-decomposition-bigger.png, git-decomposition.png, git-decomposition1.png
As part of the planned migration to git [0] it's been suggested that we combine some
of the existing components into larger groups [1] so that it's more manageable in
terms of checking out sources and tagging/branching [2].
Because 25 is a large number, and 1 is a small number, and we need some happy
compromise.
Here's my proposal for how to divide the JBT 4.0 sources into 7 github repos
(chunks), comprising 4 tiers of dependency. This is akin to the +0, +1, +2, +3 labels
assigned to projects within the annual Eclipse release trains [3], used to define delivery
times based on dependencies between projects.
{code:title=TIER 0: no upstream
JBoss.org chunks}
Base = tests + common + usage
{code}
{code:title=TIER 1: 1 upstream chunk, Base}
AppServer = openshift + as + archives + jmx + ws
-> depends on Base
Hibernate/Birt/Freemarker = hibernate + birt + freemarker
-> depends on Base
Visual Editing = vpe + xulrunner + gwt + struts + jsf + jst + cdi
-> depends on Base
Forge = forge
-> Depends on Base
{code}
{code:title=TIER 2: 4 upstream chunks}
Seam/Runtime = Seam + Runtime
-> depends on Hib + Vis + AppServer + Base
{code}
{code:title=TIER 3: 5 upstream chunks}
Central/Examples/Maven/Portlet = central + examples + maven + portlet
-> depends on Seam/Runtime + Hib + Vis + AppServer + Base
{code}
I'm not thrilled with the names of the chunks, as something like
"Central/Examples/Maven/Portlet" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. If you
have better names for the chunks, please suggest them.
But regardless of name, I think the above separation of concerns, and the implied build
sequence workflow makes a lot of sense.
[0]
http://tinyurl.com/git-migration-plan
[1]
http://ether-man.rhcloud.com/p/build.next
[2]
http://ether-man.rhcloud.com/p/jbosstools-2012-08-23
[3]
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Juno/Simultaneous_Release_Plan#Milestones_and_Rel... -
"These delivery times are based on the dependencies between projects. They are
labeled +0, +1, +2, and +3, with +0 coming first (the Platform) and +3 coming last (EPP).
Projects themselves decide if they are +0, +1, +2, or +3."
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: