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. Also there could be private arrangements in git repositories that would fit the arrangement structure too.
We want to hide the distinction between different repository types as much as possible.
This seems fair to me, as long as it follows a straightforward logic in the arrangement/thorn organization.
Bruno.