Personally, I see no need for action, but I wouldn't
strongly oppose changes, either.
--Thilo
Marshall Schor wrote:
> I'm thinking about some re-org of our SVN layout based on these
> observations
>
> -We're getting a lot of components. Many of these are on somewhat
> different release cycles.
>
> -We initially had a "main" node, a cpp node, a site note and a sandbox
> node. The sandbox was for new-ish things. As some of these things get
> more "mainline" - it would make sense to have them perhaps under another
> node to indicate that. The idea would be that things in the sandbox
> were user-beware, but things in this other node were more "dependable"
> and "proven".
> Possible names for this other node might be: "parts". Or we might want
> to have several names that categorized the kinds of things - such as
> "annotators", "servers", "embeddings", "corpora", "typeSystems",
> "tools", etc.
>
> -The SVN conventions lean toward having branches and tags which are one
> level above the thing being released. Right now, for sandbox projects,
> these are 2 levels above the released thing. I think that, going
> forward, it would be better to go with the convention, following the
> convention-over-configuration philosophy, because the components are not
> likely to all be released on the same release cycle (although that would
> be a nice "goal" - like Eclipse does with it's many-part major releases).
>
> Other opinions?
>
> -Marshall
>
|