Re: [RFC] CVS directory structure

On 15 Nov 2003 at 10:33, Chuck Hagenbuch wrote: > 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. Agreed. Apart from maybe version-numbers. Meaning: If you submit something to CVS you won't change the version-name to "...-cvs-2003- 11-15_18-59" or so ... but all files should be referenced in the package.xml if possible and you should try to keep it up-to-date in that respect ... okay. Stefan