That would be fine too, I thought you had suggested that the entire repository be linked into Cactus/bin.
Eric
Erik Schnetter mailto:schnetter@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@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@cct.lsu.edu December 5, 2010 5:09 PM
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Eric Seideleric@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@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@cct.lsu.edu December 2, 2010 9:40 AM
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Eric Seideleric@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
