Re: Thanks. Re: nested workspaces

Hendrik Boom <[email protected]> writes:

>> But it's better to checkout the two projects in parallel; there's no
>> reason the directory structure has to match the main/sub project
>> structure.
>
> Well, actually, there is.
>
> I'm writing stories.  Some are short, some are long and end up 
> organised into many files.  Each story, once it's well-enough conceived 
> to be considered a story, ends up being a separate (sub)project.

Ok.

> But there's also prewriting, where ideas and text fragments are thrown 
> about long before there's any pretense of them being stories.  These 
> get looked through now and then, and sometimes they, in various 
> combinations, become stories of their own.  Whrn that happens, I make a 
> subdirectory to isolate them from the general chaos and make a 
> concentrated place to work on them.

Why is that new directory under some other story, rather than at the
"stories" root level?

> So each story's main directory is checked into a monotone branch of its 
> own, so its further revision history doesn't get mixed with the 
> completely different revision history of other, irrelevant stories.

Right. So why are new ones not like that?

> But the main directory, that contains all these subproject workspaces, 
> is where all the initial inchoate thoughts are conceived and stored, as 
> well as README files explaining the organisation that does exist, and 
> various scripts that manage the whole  thing.

The directory for inchoate thoughts should be in parallel to the
stand-alone stories:

stories

    inchoate

    story_1

    story_2

> And it's all wrapped up in one big directory for convenience, to 
> separate it from other things that have nothing to do with story 
> writing.

See above; no problem

> The main directory is the natural place to put the idea soup that 
> hasn't crystallized into specific projects yet.

That's not "natural" to me. 

But I'm glad monotone can work for you :).

-- 
-- Stephe