Re: [RFC] CVS directory structure

Quoting Tobias Schlitt <tobias@schlitt.info>: > > - Long_Package_Names will have to look a long way down for the actual > > files.. in CVS.. > > I can not see this point. All you do is to introduce 1 additional > directory level. That stays the same for each package, because it's only > the category you add. Everything else stays the same. What if your package is Image_Text_Diagonal? (Don't get picky about the example and whether or not it should be part of Image_Text, the point is that you have a 3-level deep package). By your scheme, you'd be adding two directories to that structure before you get to the files, right? Image/Text/ then you have stuff. So your proposal adds one directory for every level of depth of the package over 1. Not just 1 always. Btw, is it *really* that hard to keep a package.xml file up to date? If you want the right to have an utterly broken package.xml file, which is the argument that I heard in a few places in this thread, then you probably *should* be developing outside of PEAR CVS. There's no reason that even an alpha-level package shouldn't have a valid package.xml that makes it installable. -chuck -- Charles Hagenbuch, <chuck@horde.org> "I'm really... I'm not too fascinated by green food." - Average Joe