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