Discussion:
Organising apps in svn
s***@online.no
2008-05-01 17:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I'm looking into reorganising the structure of apps in svn (trunk).

Any opinions on how this should look like?

Regards

Sigurd
Sigurd Nes
2008-05-01 19:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Sent: 2008-05-01 19:26:31 CEST
Subject: [phpGroupWare-developers] Organising apps in svn
Hi all,
I'm looking into reorganising the structure of apps in svn (trunk).
Any opinions on how this should look like?
Ah - that one was sent from my phone - and the attatchment seems to be scrambled (it was only a list of all apps within trunk) - but the question still apply.
It is for syncronising the structure for the official phpgroupware<->Resight.

Regards

Sigurd
Andriy Kushnarov
2008-05-01 19:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I've got a proposition to rename files that have nonlatin letters in
there names if it's possible

E.g.
trunk/addressbook/inc/export/Outlook_CSV_-_Español
Post by Sigurd Nes
Sent: 2008-05-01 19:26:31 CEST
Subject: [phpGroupWare-developers] Organising apps in svn
Hi all,
I'm looking into reorganising the structure of apps in svn (trunk).
Any opinions on how this should look like?
Ah - that one was sent from my phone - and the attatchment seems to be scrambled (it was only a list of all apps within trunk) - but the question still apply.
It is for syncronising the structure for the official phpgroupware<->Resight.
Regards
Sigurd
_______________________________________________
phpGroupWare-developers mailing list
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
--
Best Regards
Andriy Kushnarov
Maât
2008-05-02 09:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@online.no
Hi all,
I'm looking into reorganising the structure of apps in svn (trunk).
Any opinions on how this should look like?
Regards
Sigurd
Hi Sigurd,

Can you explain a little bit what you mean by "reorganising the
structure of apps in svn" please ?
Sigurd Nes
2008-05-02 13:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Sent: 2008-05-02 11:34:07 CEST
Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Organising apps in svn
Post by s***@online.no
Hi all,
I'm looking into reorganising the structure of apps in svn (trunk).
Any opinions on how this should look like?
Regards
Sigurd
Hi Sigurd,
Can you explain a little bit what you mean by "reorganising the
structure of apps in svn" please ?
It's an attempt to set up an automated two-way sync of code between the official phpgroupware repo and the corresponding resight-project.
In order to achieve that - we should come up with a common structure.

There has been som mention of grouping apps into something as:
* Core - the core modules which should be installed for all installs
* Maintained - actively maintained and developed modules
* supported - gets security and critical bug fixes
* Orphaned - use at own risk

I think this is a good structure - and if others also others agree on this one - we should decide upon which apps falls into which group.

trunk and future versions

Regards

Sigurd
Olivier Berger
2008-05-05 09:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sigurd Nes
* Core - the core modules which should be installed for all installs
* Maintained - actively maintained and developed modules
* supported - gets security and critical bug fixes
* Orphaned - use at own risk
I think this is a good structure - and if others also others agree on this one - we should decide upon which apps falls into which group.
trunk and future versions
Regards
Sigurd
Just a quick comment (from a third party ;).

I seem to recall that "core" was mentioned previously as being the set
of "core groupware applications" that make phpgroupware a groupware
solution.

So maybe it does mean email + calendar + addressbook, etc., and not just
the api + complementary libs that other modules need for running/

In what you describe, I believe the categorization is drawn more with
respect to QA (maintainability status), rather than features... but I'm
not sure I got it right.

Is this what you were thinking of ?

Best regards,
--
Olivier BERGER <***@it-sudparis.eu> (*NEW ADDRESS*)
http://www-inf.it-sudparis.eu/~olberger/ - OpenPGP-Id: 1024D/6B829EEC
Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
Institut TELECOM / TELECOM & Management SudParis
(http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry
Maât
2008-05-05 10:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olivier Berger
Post by Sigurd Nes
* Core - the core modules which should be installed for all installs
* Maintained - actively maintained and developed modules
* supported - gets security and critical bug fixes
* Orphaned - use at own risk
I think this is a good structure - and if others also others agree on this one - we should decide upon which apps falls into which group.
trunk and future versions
Regards
Sigurd
Just a quick comment (from a third party ;).
I seem to recall that "core" was mentioned previously as being the set
of "core groupware applications" that make phpgroupware a groupware
solution.
So maybe it does mean email + calendar + addressbook, etc., and not just
the api + complementary libs that other modules need for running/
In what you describe, I believe the categorization is drawn more with
respect to QA (maintainability status), rather than features... but I'm
not sure I got it right.
Is this what you were thinking of ?
Best regards,
Hi,

I think we want to consider these things are different (but connected) :

-- svn organization
-- applications statuses

svn organization should help make coding and versions management clean
and as easy as possible

applications statuses (wether core or standard or maintained or third
party and unmaintained) should be used to define what we put in
phpGroupWare tarball (light, complete and perhaps various flavours (
like project management, community communications... )

The first idea was to have a minimal phpGroupWare ready to run with only
one checkout instead of many :

phpgroupware then inside it :
-- admin
-- developer_tools
-- phpgwapi
-- preferences
-- setup
-- and perhaps other low level things ( to check : syncml xmlrpc soap
and things like that)

with just one svn checkout we should be able to have a ready to run
phpgroupware... the user must be able to install it and log in it
without the slightest problem.

for applications (even core ones) there is something we need to think :
phpGroupWare has been thought to host various versions of applications
(even calendar, addressbook and email) so i think the logical cut is there :

in savannah phpgroupware svn "root" ( for example
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/?root=phpgroupware but tha
would be more clean to see it right at the upper level )

i would see a phpgroupware directory with :

phpgroupware
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
|
+ admin
|
+ developer_tools
|
+ doc
|
+ phpgwapi
|
+ preferences
|
+ setup
|
+ README.NOW-IMPORTANT
|
+ about.php
|
+ ...
|
+ xmlrpc.php

( I would also recommand to move all docs concerning all this into doc
root dir here above)

then for each application i'd rather se it appear aside phpgroupware dir
with the following structure :

application
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
|
+ doc
|
+ help
|
+ inc
|
+ setup
|
+ templates
|
+ index.php

for testing purposes we could make nightly generated tarballs including
various applications :

Here are a few examples :
---------------------------------

-- basic flavour : phpGroupWare (as defined above) + email + calendar +
addressbook + notes + messenger

-- project management flavour : phpGroupWare + email + calendar +
addressbook + notes + todo + wiki + bugtracker + ged

-- facilities management flavour : phpGroupWare + property + .... (see
Sigurd for advice)

-- we can imagine other flavours dont limit yourself ;)

and that could be provided with 2 levels :

-- all taken from trunk (with warning)

-- all taken from defined branches (more stable)

these tarball should not be cleaned of svn info (anonymous checkouts) so
that people can use svn checkout.

(We could prevent .svn web accesses with a default .htaccess)

I'll stop there.. that's heavy enough for a single mail :)

greetings,

Maât
Sigurd Nes
2008-05-19 08:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Looks like Maat has a clear idea on how this could be arranged.
If there is no objections - I would like to ask if someone could take on this task (preferable Maat - since he seems like the expert here).

It would help if the operation was performed within a shell-script - then it would be easy to replicate within the Resight project, and maybe we could have a look at it before it was performed to make sure that we understand each other.

Regards

Sigurd.

Sent from the phpGroupWare forums @ forums.phpGroupWare.org
Dave Hall
2008-05-19 09:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sigurd Nes
Looks like Maat has a clear idea on how this could be arranged.
If there is no objections - I would like to ask if someone could take
on this task (preferable Maat - since he seems like the expert here).
As discussed in the past, phpGroupWare doesn't _need_ to anything. It
is our private repo which has issues, so we need to be make the changes.
Post by Sigurd Nes
It would help if the operation was performed within a shell-script -
then it would be easy to replicate within the Resight project, and
maybe we could have a look at it before it was performed to make sure
that we understand each other.
The tree structures are completely different, so any shell script would
be useless.

It also makes more sense to start the work in our private tree, so if
you get it wrong the impact is massively reduced.

Cheers

Dave
Sigurd Nes
2008-05-19 09:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Sent: 2008-05-19 11:09:40 CEST
Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Re: Organising apps in svn
Post by Sigurd Nes
Looks like Maat has a clear idea on how this could be arranged.
If there is no objections - I would like to ask if someone could take
on this task (preferable Maat - since he seems like the expert here).
As discussed in the past, phpGroupWare doesn't _need_ to anything. It
is our private repo which has issues, so we need to be make the changes.
Oops - seems like I have misunderstood the situation completely - sorry.
The shortest route will then be to arrange the Resight tree as the current phpGroupWare tree - and we should be ok.
Post by Sigurd Nes
It would help if the operation was performed within a shell-script -
then it would be easy to replicate within the Resight project, and
maybe we could have a look at it before it was performed to make sure
that we understand each other.
The tree structures are completely different, so any shell script would
be useless.
Would give a head start.
It also makes more sense to start the work in our private tree, so if
you get it wrong the impact is massively reduced.
I misunderstood - I thought phpGrouWare was looking for a new arrangement - and that Resight should adapt to it.

Regards

Sigurd
Dave Hall
2008-05-19 10:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sigurd Nes
Sent: 2008-05-19 11:09:40 CEST
Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Re: Organising apps in svn
Post by Sigurd Nes
Looks like Maat has a clear idea on how this could be arranged.
If there is no objections - I would like to ask if someone could take
on this task (preferable Maat - since he seems like the expert here).
As discussed in the past, phpGroupWare doesn't _need_ to anything. It
is our private repo which has issues, so we need to be make the changes.
Oops - seems like I have misunderstood the situation completely - sorry.
The shortest route will then be to arrange the Resight tree as the current phpGroupWare tree - and we should be ok.
It won't actually solve the problem of how long it takes to create clean
patches. It will save some time, but not a lot. Changing the resight
tree still won't allow semi automated patch set generation.
Post by Sigurd Nes
It also makes more sense to start the work in our private tree, so if
you get it wrong the impact is massively reduced.
I misunderstood - I thought phpGrouWare was looking for a new arrangement - and that Resight should adapt to it.
phpGW has agreed to do this months ago, but when it happens depends on
when someone has a spare weekend. As we discussed when we last met, it
makes sense for ReSight to do it in a coordinated was instead of having
to change our internal tree structure twice and allows the timing to be
coordinated.

Cheers

Dave
Dr. Christian Böttger
2008-05-23 10:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sigurd Nes
Oops - seems like I have misunderstood the situation completely - sorry.
The shortest route will then be to arrange the Resight tree as the current phpGroupWare tree - and we should be ok.
Yep, exactly.

I'm glad this problem is "solved"

Regards

Christian
--
***** Open Source und Linux im professionellen Einsatz *****
Dr. Christian Böttger (Dipl.Phys.) DF5OP Open Source Broker
EMail ***@gmail.com / ***@boettger.eu.com
http://www.boettger.cc/ http://www.mydarc.de/df5op/
OpenBC: http://www.openbc.com/go/invuid/Christian_Boettger2
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christianboettger
Dr. Christian Böttger
2008-05-23 10:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Dave Hall
The tree structures are completely different, so any shell script would
be useless.
or the scripts would have to be so complicated that they themselves
would be unmaintainable
Post by Dave Hall
It also makes more sense to start the work in our private tree, so if
you get it wrong the impact is massively reduced.
I totally agree to this point.


Regards

Christian aka bofh42
Release Coordinator
--
***** Open Source und Linux im professionellen Einsatz *****
Dr. Christian Böttger (Dipl.Phys.) DF5OP Open Source Broker
EMail ***@gmail.com / ***@boettger.eu.com
http://www.boettger.cc/ http://www.mydarc.de/df5op/
OpenBC: http://www.openbc.com/go/invuid/Christian_Boettger2
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christianboettger
Dave Hall
2008-05-19 09:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maât
Post by Olivier Berger
Post by Sigurd Nes
* Core - the core modules which should be installed for all installs
* Maintained - actively maintained and developed modules
* supported - gets security and critical bug fixes
* Orphaned - use at own risk
I think this is a good structure - and if others also others agree on this one - we should decide upon which apps falls into which group.
trunk and future versions
Regards
Sigurd
Just a quick comment (from a third party ;).
I seem to recall that "core" was mentioned previously as being the set
of "core groupware applications" that make phpgroupware a groupware
solution.
So maybe it does mean email + calendar + addressbook, etc., and not just
the api + complementary libs that other modules need for running/
In what you describe, I believe the categorization is drawn more with
respect to QA (maintainability status), rather than features... but I'm
not sure I got it right.
Is this what you were thinking of ?
Best regards,
Hi,
-- svn organization
-- applications statuses
svn organization should help make coding and versions management clean
and as easy as possible
applications statuses (wether core or standard or maintained or third
party and unmaintained) should be used to define what we put in
phpGroupWare tarball (light, complete and perhaps various flavours (
like project management, community communications... )
The first idea was to have a minimal phpGroupWare ready to run with only
-- admin
-- developer_tools
-- phpgwapi
-- preferences
-- setup
-- and perhaps other low level things ( to check : syncml xmlrpc soap
and things like that)
with just one svn checkout we should be able to have a ready to run
phpgroupware... the user must be able to install it and log in it
without the slightest problem.
phpGroupWare has been thought to host various versions of applications
in savannah phpgroupware svn "root" ( for example
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/trunk/?root=phpgroupware but tha
would be more clean to see it right at the upper level )
phpgroupware
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
|
+ admin
|
+ developer_tools
|
+ doc
|
+ phpgwapi
|
+ preferences
|
+ setup
|
+ README.NOW-IMPORTANT
|
+ about.php
|
+ ...
|
+ xmlrpc.php
Developer tools doesn't really belong here. Also the core modules will
need to go here.
Post by Maât
( I would also recommand to move all docs concerning all this into doc
root dir here above)
then for each application i'd rather se it appear aside phpgroupware dir
application
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
There should also be a higher level,

* core (which is what is outlined above)
* maintained (actively maintained modules - nothing at this stage),
* supported (security support only - all modules atm)
* orphaned (everything currenyly under old)

Modules can be moved from supported to maintained once they are audited
and meet agreed release/security criteria.

Cheers

Dave
Maât
2008-05-19 11:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Hall
Post by Sigurd Nes
phpgroupware
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
|
+ admin
|
+ developer_tools
|
+ doc
|
+ phpgwapi
|
+ preferences
|
+ setup
|
+ README.NOW-IMPORTANT
|
+ about.php
|
+ ...
|
+ xmlrpc.php
Developer tools doesn't really belong here. Also the core modules will
need to go here.
Developper tool should be part of core system as it is not really an
application but a real part of the framework allowing developers to
create applications ( inthe same way special things in setup allow to
create tables descriptions
Post by Dave Hall
There should also be a higher level,
* core (which is what is outlined above)
* maintained (actively maintained modules - nothing at this stage),
* supported (security support only - all modules atm)
* orphaned (everything currenyly under old)
Modules can be moved from supported to maintained once they are audited
and meet agreed release/security criteria.
That's why i insisted on the difference between repos organization and
applications statuses... wether an app gets supported or not should not
involve modifications of repositories : history will be painful to
follow and big moves in repositories are not recommended

Statuses ( core maintained supported and whatever ) should only impact
integration in tar.gz flavour packages and be reported on website and
download page

Reflecting global app statuses in svn organization is something i would
never recommend.
Dave Hall
2008-05-19 12:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maât
Post by Dave Hall
Post by Sigurd Nes
phpgroupware
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
|
+ admin
|
+ developer_tools
|
+ doc
|
+ phpgwapi
|
+ preferences
|
+ setup
|
+ README.NOW-IMPORTANT
|
+ about.php
|
+ ...
|
+ xmlrpc.php
Developer tools doesn't really belong here. Also the core modules will
need to go here.
Developper tool should be part of core system as it is not really an
application but a real part of the framework allowing developers to
create applications ( inthe same way special things in setup allow to
create tables descriptions
But it is for developers, not people who just want to install and use
phpgw as is. developer_tools should be a standalone module, it is not
broadly useful. Also in its current state it isn't useful at all as it
is broken.
Post by Maât
Post by Dave Hall
There should also be a higher level,
* core (which is what is outlined above)
* maintained (actively maintained modules - nothing at this stage),
* supported (security support only - all modules atm)
* orphaned (everything currenyly under old)
Modules can be moved from supported to maintained once they are audited
and meet agreed release/security criteria.
That's why i insisted on the difference between repos organization and
applications statuses... wether an app gets supported or not should not
involve modifications of repositories : history will be painful to
follow and big moves in repositories are not recommended
svn log shows histories when svn mv is used. svn
mv /supported/<module> /orphaned/ is very easy to do.
Post by Maât
Statuses ( core maintained supported and whatever ) should only impact
integration in tar.gz flavour packages and be reported on website and
download page
Reflecting global app statuses in svn organization is something i would
never recommend.
I think it makes it very clear to people the state of a module before
checking it out. It also makes it clear to new contributors where to
focus their energies.

Cheers

Dave
Maât
2008-05-19 12:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Hall
But it is for developers, not people who just want to install and use
phpgw as is. developer_tools should be a standalone module, it is not
broadly useful.
setup to generate database structure definitions is no more useful...
but it's in setup !

Atm we need more to attract new developers tnat to gold plate the
project removing a few files that user will never see if they are there
or not.

But for a new potential contributor getting started with just one svn co
will be a good point.
Post by Dave Hall
Also in its current state it isn't useful at all as it
is broken.
lol... perhaps we could consider fixing it instead of kicking it aside :)
Post by Dave Hall
I think it makes it very clear to people the state of a module before
checking it out. It also makes it clear to new contributors where to
focus their energies.
lol

you consider potential contributors clever enouh to make recursive svn
co and choose the applications they need to have a working phpgw dev
directory structure ... but too stupid to make the difference between
supported and unsupported apps ?

i bet you're kidding :)

Architecture and organisation never replaces comunication... but both
must go together.

For application status and effort focusing this is a question of
communication and community coordination.

For svn trees organisation this is only a question of keeping things
"stupid simple"... and hiding communication about apps statuses inside
the pathes of svn repos will make phpgw even harder to get in that it
is now i think.
Sigurd Nes
2008-05-19 19:26:31 UTC
Permalink
While we are thinking - this one checks out what ever you want and put
everything in its right place (at least - it did for me).

Of course - the modules could be organised into groups as mentioned.

Regards

Sigurd
Maât
2008-05-19 19:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sigurd Nes
While we are thinking - this one checks out what ever you want and put
everything in its right place (at least - it did for me).
Of course - the modules could be organised into groups as mentioned.
Regards
Sigurd
nice base for betatesters... that would be even better if it could be
triggered from admin menu (not setup) :

-- ad new app
-- update app
-- remove app
-- switch app version

btw in beta mode and if internet is available from the phpgw local
server it could be nice to provide some kind of automatic feedback and
error reporting.

when an error raises : click here to report error => form with hidden
data (what app was called from where, what error...) plus a free text to
let betatester comment and explain...

Maât


Note : But for developers the checkout will probably be performed from
an integrated development environment (eclipse in my case but that's
only one choice possible among many)... often these ide use thir own svn
co system with meta supplementary data... so this "scripted" checkout
method will not be useful in such cases.

If we consider new young and brilliant hackers will be more and more
likely to prefer graphical ides than vim or emacs i maintain that svn co
sould me made as simple and natural as we can (and very well documented
and explained... i'll be working on this part soon).
Dave Hall
2008-05-20 07:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maât
Post by Dave Hall
But it is for developers, not people who just want to install and use
phpgw as is. developer_tools should be a standalone module, it is not
broadly useful.
setup to generate database structure definitions is no more useful...
but it's in setup !
huh?
Post by Maât
Atm we need more to attract new developers tnat to gold plate the
project removing a few files that user will never see if they are there
or not.
There is no glod plating going on. developer_tools is for _developers_,
the tarballs are primarily for sysadmins. Try this example, when you
install a binary deb, it doesn't install all the headers and other stuff
that developers might want, they come in a -dev package. Same thing
here, phpGW should be targeting sys admins with our tarballs and svn to
devs.

Having developer_tools which depends on etemplates in the core part of
phpgw is sending the wrong messages.

Cheers

Dave
Dr. Christian Böttger
2008-05-23 11:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maât
For svn trees organisation this is only a question of keeping things
"stupid simple"... and hiding communication about apps statuses inside
the pathes of svn repos will make phpgw even harder to get in that it
is now i think.
basically we have two independent sorting criteria here: core, devtools,
applications on one hand (regardless of status) and features criteria
like supported, orphaned, ... on the other. Perhaps even a thrid, again
indepented set like minimal setup, standrd, full, <various flavors).

Isn't that what tags etc are for? Moving around applications from one
tree to another on status change seems to be unnatural to any version
control system. But having a logical tag named "supported apps" or
"phpGW taylored for <whatever>" resulting in the checkout of all code in
that status (core + apps) can be a very handy feature.

It's not "hiding the information in the path name", it's more "putting
it in there additionally" - more communication.

just my 2¢

Regards

CB
--
***** Open Source und Linux im professionellen Einsatz *****
Dr. Christian Böttger (Dipl.Phys.) DF5OP Open Source Broker
EMail ***@gmail.com / ***@boettger.eu.com
http://www.boettger.cc/ http://www.mydarc.de/df5op/
OpenBC: http://www.openbc.com/go/invuid/Christian_Boettger2
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christianboettger
Maât
2008-05-23 12:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Christian Böttger
Post by Maât
For svn trees organisation this is only a question of keeping things
"stupid simple"... and hiding communication about apps statuses
inside the pathes of svn repos will make phpgw even harder to get in
that it is now i think.
basically we have two independent sorting criteria here: core,
devtools, applications on one hand (regardless of status) and features
criteria like supported, orphaned, ... on the other. Perhaps even a
thrid, again indepented set like minimal setup, standrd, full,
<various flavors).
Isn't that what tags etc are for?
definetely no :)

tags in svn are not thought to deal with that.

tags in svn are symply code freeze points with a label

Mnemonic : think of svn tags as "versions"
Post by Dr. Christian Böttger
Moving around applications from one tree to another on status change
seems to be unnatural to any version control system. But having a
logical tag named "supported apps" or "phpGW taylored for <whatever>"
resulting in the checkout of all code in that status (core + apps) can
be a very handy feature.
i agree with the feature need of "checkout of all code in [a particular]
status" and svn external links can be very helpful for that

you can have a specific "flavor" structure in svn using massively
external links to apps specific tags so that a single checkout brings
also the wanted apps (with the right version) with it and if you use
tags on it you can have something very simple to use and easy to maintain.

But i stick with what i said : using svn organization to store statuses
and using svn move to reflect statuses changes will make history rather
painful to read and svn changes of structure need to play with svn
switch (which can be rather time consuming)...

very very poor quality in this approach... i made this kind of errors
with svn whan i started playing with it some years ago... i give here a
feedback linked to my personal experience... but you can choose not to
follow the advice :)
Post by Dr. Christian Böttger
It's not "hiding the information in the path name", it's more "putting
it in there additionally" - more communication.
just my 2¢
sorry but i disagree
Post by Dr. Christian Böttger
Regards
CB
Dr. Christian Böttger
2008-05-23 10:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Dave Hall
Post by Maât
The first idea was to have a minimal phpGroupWare ready to run with only
ACK
Post by Dave Hall
Developer tools doesn't really belong here. Also the core modules will
need to go here.
ACK
Post by Dave Hall
Post by Maât
( I would also recommand to move all docs concerning all this into doc
root dir here above)
then for each application i'd rather se it appear aside phpgroupware dir
application
|
+-- branches
|
+-- tags
|
+-- trunk
There should also be a higher level,
* core (which is what is outlined above)
* maintained (actively maintained modules - nothing at this stage),
* supported (security support only - all modules atm)
* orphaned (everything currenyly under old)
Modules can be moved from supported to maintained once they are audited
and meet agreed release/security criteria.
ACK - this is the way to go

Regards

CB aka bofh42
--
***** Open Source und Linux im professionellen Einsatz *****
Dr. Christian Böttger (Dipl.Phys.) DF5OP Open Source Broker
EMail ***@gmail.com / ***@boettger.eu.com
http://www.boettger.cc/ http://www.mydarc.de/df5op/
OpenBC: http://www.openbc.com/go/invuid/Christian_Boettger2
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/christianboettger
Loading...