[Users] Completing GetComponents' transition to GitHub

[Bruno C. Mundim]

Hi Eric,

would you mind to update the wiki with the appropriate commands (git 
clone and path) for GetComponents?

Thanks,
Bruno.

Eric Seidel wrote:
>   I have applied this patch. Going forward, development of GetComponents 
> will be done on GitHub.
> 
> Eric
> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	Erik Schnetter <mailto:schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
>> December 23, 2010 1:31 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Shouldn't the binary live directly in Cactus/bin/GetComponents? The
>> CRL repository would live in repos, as usual, and the binary itself
>> would be a symbolic link. We can then do the same with SimFactory.
>>
>> -erik
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	Eric Seidel <mailto:eric at eseidel.org>
>> December 23, 2010 1:25 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> I made the necessary modifications to GetComponents in svn to support 
>> this. I have attached a modified patch to add the git version of 
>> GetComponents, which I would like to apply to finally complete the 
>> transition. GetComponents will now live at 
>> https://github.com/gridaphobe/CRL, and I will add a LaTeX version of 
>> the documentation shortly so that it can be built with the rest of the 
>> Cactus documentation.
>>
>> The transition will be a two step process (assuming you are using the 
>> development version): the next time you update Cactus, you will get 
>> the updated thornlist and svn-GetComponents. Then when you run 
>> GetComponents again, it will add the git version, which will be 
>> located in Cactus/bin/CRL/GetComponents. This seems to be the most 
>> stable process to me.
>>
>> Eric
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	Erik Schnetter <mailto:schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
>> December 5, 2010 5:09 PM
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at eseidel.org> wrote:
>>> Erik Schnetter wrote:
>>>> Ah, I think I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to have a link to
>>>> the GetComponents script itself in the Cactus directory. Yes, a link
>>>> to the CRL directory makes sense; this is the "standard" way we handle
>>>> git repositories at the moment.
>>> So I just looked into this, and it seems that GetComponents is not currently
>>> equipped to symlink an entire git repo. This is a silly oversight on my
>>> part; I can fix it, but that would require another patch to GetComponents.
>>> Another possibility would be to create the 'bin' directory and link
>>> GetComponents into bin. Then users could call './bin/GetComponents' or
>>> possibly './bin/CRL/GetComponents', the latter would allow for documentation
>>> to be linked as well.
>>
>> I suggest to do both, to correct the fact that GetComponents cannot
>> link whole repositories, and to create and use a "bin" directory in
>> Cactus.
>>
>>>> You could create a new project. Better now than later...
>>>> "GetComponents" is a rather specific name and limits the scope of the
>>>> project.
>>> It is easier to just change the name of the project to CRL. This would
>>> change the URL to http://github.com/gridaphobe/CRL. If I do this it would
>>> probably make sense to change the URL on my website as well; however, I know
>>> that ET and possibly cactuscode.org link to my website. Are there any other
>>> pages that link to it?
>>
>> I don't know. You can set up a permanent redirect on your web server,
>> which will automatically forward people plus leave a log entry on your
>> server telling you which pages to correct.
>>
>> -erik
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	Eric Seidel <mailto:eric at eseidel.org>
>> December 4, 2010 11:26 AM
>>
>>
>> Erik Schnetter wrote:
>>> Ah, I think I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to have a link to
>>> the GetComponents script itself in the Cactus directory. Yes, a link
>>> to the CRL directory makes sense; this is the "standard" way we handle
>>> git repositories at the moment.
>> So I just looked into this, and it seems that GetComponents is not 
>> currently equipped to symlink an entire git repo. This is a silly 
>> oversight on my part; I can fix it, but that would require another 
>> patch to GetComponents. Another possibility would be to create the 
>> 'bin' directory and link GetComponents into bin. Then users could call 
>> './bin/GetComponents' or possibly './bin/CRL/GetComponents', the 
>> latter would allow for documentation to be linked as well.
>>> You could create a new project. Better now than later...
>>> "GetComponents" is a rather specific name and limits the scope of the
>>> project.
>> It is easier to just change the name of the project to CRL. This would 
>> change the URL to http://github.com/gridaphobe/CRL. If I do this it 
>> would probably make sense to change the URL on my website as well; 
>> however, I know that ET and possibly cactuscode.org link to my 
>> website. Are there any other pages that link to it?
>>
>> Eric
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 	Erik Schnetter <mailto:schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>
>> December 2, 2010 9:40 AM
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Eric Seidel <eric at eseidel.org> wrote:
>>> Frank Loeffler wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:25:12AM -0500, Erik Schnetter wrote:
>>>
>>> I think GetComponents
>>> should be handled in the same way, and would omit the symlink.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know how to do that without just coping GetComponents and not
>>> having it in a repository.
>>>
>>> As Frank said, this would not be possible with the way GetComponents handles
>>> git repositories. We would have to symlink GetComponents (or a "CRL"
>>> directory). I'm not particularly happy with the way this is handled by
>>> GetComponents, and I've been thinking about modifying the behavior to place
>>> the actual repo in !TARGET unless something is specified in !CHECKOUT, but
>>> that is another discussion...
>>
>> Ah, I think I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to have a link to
>> the GetComponents script itself in the Cactus directory. Yes, a link
>> to the CRL directory makes sense; this is the "standard" way we handle
>> git repositories at the moment.
>>
>>> As to Erik's suggestion of placing everything in a single "CRL" directory,
>>> that would actually be a more sensible name for the git repository. It also
>>> holds my experimental generateCRL script, which generates a component list
>>> based on the items you have checked out (only works with cvs and svn so
>>> far). I don't know if GitHub allows you to change the name of your
>>> repository, but I might change it if they do.
>>
>> You could create a new project. Better now than later...
>> "GetComponents" is a rather specific name and limits the scope of the
>> project.
>>
>> -erik
>>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at einsteintoolkit.org
> http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users