Re: core subdirectories

Sorry I'm late chiming in on this topic. I think that renaming the directory
is probably the right thing to do. Using the name 'core' has caused problems
with other tools (e.g. cvs).

I think the first step is to come up with a new name for the directory that
is acceptable. I don't have any good name suggestions at the moment.

Second is to choose a method for doing the rename. I don't like the idea of
moving the files on the file system because that code isn't all that old,
besides the guys at sf have to move it for us since we don't have access to
the file system. Instead I would prefer one of two approaches.

1. cvs add the files from core into the new directory name in the existing
tree and then cvs remove the old files.

or

2. reimporting all of the code in a new top level directory with the
directory name changes. If we do this I would like to move around some of
the other files into better locations at the same time.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I think we could start with
1. and then move to 2. unless someone wants to take on 2 right now.

--Huston

> Personally I'd really rather not move the directory.  I'd like to see if
we can
> fix autoconf.
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 03:03:58PM -0400, Chris Hanson wrote:
> >    Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:48:28 -0700
> >    From: Devin Kowatch <[email protected]>
> >
> >    I don't think that allowing configure to remove a directory with
source
> >    under any circumstances is a good idea.  Especially as the people
most
> >    likely to interrupt configure are developers who are also most likely
to
> >    have modified files that they don't want to loose.
> >
> >    Besides moving a directory in CVS is just a matter of moving the
> >    directory in the repository, then updateding the makefiles.
> >
> > I agree that this is a serious problem that must be addressed; I
> > didn't mean to suggest otherwise.
> >
> > However, moving the directory isn't so straightforward.  The problem
> > is that if one does as you suggest, it's not possible to recover older
> > snapshots of the software.  Or, more specifically, one can recover
> > them but they won't be organized correctly.
> >
> > The only way that will work properly is to copy the core subdirectory
> > to its new name, "cvs add" the new directory and all its substructure,
> > then "cvs remove core".  It is a pain, but not a huge pain.
> >
> > I'd be willing to do this but I don't feel entitled to make a decision
> > of this magnitude for the project.  If the project admins agree that
> > it's reasonable, I'll be happy to do the grunt work.
> >
> > Chris




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31