Re: CVS is your friend

On 15 Nov 2003 at 16:55, Jon Parise wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 10:53:39PM +0100, Tobias Schlitt wrote: > > > So, maybe someone can really explain to me, why you all demand on > > this flat directory structure? > > I like the current structure because it's package-centric; it makes no > assumptions about the layout or structure of the installed package > hierarchy. The package.xml file provides that mapping. > > I advocate a flat directory structure because I think it's simpler and > makes for a cleaner CVS tree. > > I wouldn't say we're "demanding" a flat directory structure, however. > I think we're just wary of making large changes to the current CVS > organization. > > Personally, though, I really don't care what developers want to do in > their little corner of the 'pear/' CVS tree. While having a single > standard would be nice, the package.xml mapping system can already > handle most permutations. Well, I'd surely agree with you if there was just a way to easily work on packages stored in CVS without the needs of large workarounds, symlinks or whatever. It's not that we are the "new and mighty clever" and intend to reform the whole world. It's just that we see how complicated the handling is and that Pierre came up with an experiment / proposal. What I'd really love to do is understand how the current CVS structure can efficiently be used. So it would be nice if "the old forks" could tell how they handle their work, or would handle there work if they were - like Toby - working on e.g. Image_Tools and Image_Text at the same time while also trying out other current CVS- releases. (PS: Just copying and after editing copying-back is not allowed in the solution we're looking for :-)). Regards, Stefan