Re: LedgerSMB companion projects

[Jeff Kowalczyk <..hidden..>]

--- Chris Travers <..hidden..> wrote:
> > I would think that as long as a module's functionality has any possibility
> > of being integrated with, or some code moved to, the LedgerSMB core, then
> > the code base benefits by keeping that development process close to home.
> 
> Not quite sure I follow you.  I think it is important for the core
> team to be available for input regardless of where the code is hosted,
> and I suspect that this is more important than whether it is hosted by
> us, by Google, or by Sourceforge.

(see below)

> > would be very nice to have subprojects under a separate path within the
> > same repository. 
>
> importance in having a core team that is available to help companion
> projects minimize foreward-compatibility issues.

Yes, forward migration is the important issue. Companion projects could be
pretty tightly dependent on a specific branch or tag of LedgerSMB, and may
share some related issues in the tracker, merge occasions, etc.

I'm thinking of the case where a column or stored procedure signature changes.

It would be nice to have most of the affected sub projects in the same
repository, for easy updating and documentation relative to the subversion rev
of the breaking change: e.g. 

'refs #334. add username and timestamp to GL table. update sp_foo signatures'

'closes #335, refs #334. update lighmanuf.pm to new sp_foo signatures, now
depends on source:LedgerSMB/trunk#1642 or later and dataset migration to
schema-1.9.4'


Personally, I get a lot of information and sense of the project out of
cross-referenced commit messages like that. It's a completely different
experience than ViewCVS.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com