RE: [PEAR-DEV] CVS is your friend

> From: Jon Parise [mailto:jon@php.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 10:55 PM > 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. Agreed. To some extend .. if you are saying I prefer each package to live alone in it is own subdir I say amen. If you say that in that subdir you prefer to keep the hierarchy to me as low as possible even though this means jumping through all the hoops people have suggested then I don't agree. I have spend a lot of time just checking out code in CVS. Sitting in #pear I often try to help people and it would really be sweet if I could just check a sample in CVS (for example to be able to say this bug is fixed in CVS because I remember some commits that sounded like that). More importantly I usually look at how packages update when I do a global update. Anyways I must admit I have one dir that I have checked out separately and that is the MDB_1 branch of MDB which I have checked out alone. But for casual checking of packages that is simply annoying. I have done the same for LiveUser but I find it quite annoying to have redundant code (my full checkout and my useful version of LiveUser .. you know the one that I can actually run tests on). In the MDB case the branch is distinct code that I don't get with my full pear checkout. > 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. Yup .. making it a global change seems foolish given that so many people are happy the way things are. However not allowing this as an option seems equally foolish given that a sufficient amount of people find the current way cumbersome and no good solution (in their eyes) has been offered as an alternative. > 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. Indeed the package.xml should be a good enough reference point. So to conclude I think it has been established that the current way is cumbersome for a valid development approach (sorry I don't understand the don't develop in CVS dir argument at all and I have a hard time taking this seriously since all people that through it out proclaimed it like a religious message without any reasoning what so ever) and some of the solutions suggested obviously don't work for certain developer needs. Also given the fact that I don't see where a few empty dirs can lead to confusion (especially since every package needs to have a package.xml anyways) I see no harm in making it an option. I also must say I take a bit offence at how people are ridiculing the needs of other developers. I appreciate a helping word (similar to how Jon explained some CVS features because he felt that people might not be aware) but I think people should think a bit more before pushing other ideas aside in such a rude fashion. Regards, Lukas