Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:42:11AM +0200, Mathieu L. wrote:
> This seems to me the saner way of doing it evoqued so far, except that 
> I'm still not convinced using the developper name as a scheme (even in
> p4) is a good thing.
> 

What would be a better way to organize the tree in the repository?

Since we've opened the door of it being arbitrary and hidden from users
we can pick whatever works best for developers working in the repository.

The problem this scheme solves is 'who is maintaining what spells' as
well as making it convenient for users to 'claim' spells by integrating
them to their 'section'. Plus its easy for developers to visualize their
spells and to use repository commands on them naturally.

Im not sure what other development centric layout problem there is to solve.

The disadvantages with this scheme are a huge 'unmaintained' section,
you have to think a little harder about spell inheritence, you have to
'build' the grimoire to be able to use it, and the repository history
may get interesting as people branch spells out of the unmaintained
section into their sections and then back again. Advantages are the
problems it solves above.

Of course, not everyone will ever like the layout we choose (if we
choose to do anything at all), since we use a filesystem and not a
relational database we're limited to one bare-metal layout at a time.

-Andrew

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt                           | astitt at sourcemage.org    |
|irc: afrayedknot                          | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus    | acedit at armory.com        |
|Sorcery Team Lead                         | ftp://t.armory.com/         |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpyKxK3LD31Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature