[Users] GetComponents and git-repos

[Bruno Coutinho Mundim]

Erik Schnetter wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 16:24 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote:
> 
>> Erik Schnetter wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 2010, at 15:46 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote:
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> I heard you are looking for a feedback on desirable features for
>>>> GetComponents, so I have one feature to report that I actually don't
>>>> like. I think the directory git-repos does break the logical
>>>> organization of arrangements and thorns. It would be desirable to
>>>> have all git-repos arrangements actually located in the arrangements
>>>> directory. Another logical way of organizing the arrangements would
>>>> be to discriminate all of them by the type of repository their  
>>>> versions
>>>> are controlled. Something as follows:
>>>>
>>>> arrangements-cvs
>>>> arrangements-git
>>>> arrangements-svn
>>>> arrangements-hg
>>>> etc...
>>>>
>>>> It may just be a matter of taste and I can live of that, but I thought
>>>> to bring this issue up and maybe more people agree on a neater way of
>>>> labeling the arrangement directories(y).
>>> Eric
>>> (Without answering to Bruno's suggestion)
>>> I think we don't need the distinction between git-repos and hg-repos  
>>> etc.; instead, there could be a single directory "repos" that 
>>> contains  all those repositories that don't fit into the arrangement 
>>> structure.   You could also place a README file into this directory, 
>>> explaining in  a few lines why this directory is there.
>>
>> This sounds as a good idea as well. However there should be some sort of
>> label or GetComponents directives to distinguish between these
>> repositories. For example, while carpet and krank wouldn't fit in the
>> usual arrangement/thorn organization, McLachlan would.
> 
> 
> Indeed!  I didn't spot this.
> 
> -erik
> 
What about a directive such as !REPO_TREE to indicate the kind of tree 
the repository has? It would default to "arrangement", but could also 
have an "other" value in order to checkout its components into "repos"
instead of "arrangements".

Cheers... Bruno.