On Jun 11, 2010, at 16:45 , Bruno Coutinho Mundim wrote:
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".
It is not possible to check out only parts of a git or hg repository; this is different from svn or cvs. Since GetComponents checks out individual thorns, this means it has to check out the complete repository in a different location and then set up symbolic links. This is actually no different for McLachlan if someone does not want all the McLachlan thorns.
REPO_TREE doesn't seem necessary; whether the repository contains arrangements or thorns is already described by the REPO_PATH variable. If REPO_PATH is $2, then the repository contains thorns, and the repository name can be used as arrangement name.
-erik