Re: LDAP SDK and source repositories

Serge Gautherie wrote:
>>  From a comm-central view point I think we could cope with either, 
>> although if we did an all-in-one I'd probably think about moving the 
>> xpcom sdk back to the LDAP repository as that would also help building 
>> binary extensions against xulrunner with LDAP.
> 
> I don't know much about the xpcom sdk,
> but, in the "one repo per sdk", this sdk could just move to its own repo 
> too...

First, let me say that on the LDAP side of things, Rich and Anton's 
opinions are much more important than mine (I no longer work with LDAP 
on a day-to-day basis).

Given the relatively small size of all of the LDAP code, I don't see a 
big advantage in the "one repository per SDK" solution.  It seems like 
less overhead and simpler to me to have one repository for all of the 
LDAP SDKs.  There may be a technical (hg) or philosophical reason to 
have separate repos that I am not aware of though.

Also, I am not in favor of a solution that will cause two copies of the 
code to be maintained (or stored) in two different places.  When we did 
that in the past, the C SDK code used by Thunderbird just kept getting 
older and older and changes were made in two places... and the result 
was a small mess.  Pulling from the same repository but using a tag to 
provide stability to consumers like TBird and SeaMonkey is my 
preference.  I assume that is what is still done for NSS and NSPR?

-- 
Mark Smith
Pearl Crescent
http://pearlcrescent.com/