Antonio Gallardo wrote:
On Mie, 16 de Marzo de 2005, 10:15, Carsten Ziegeler dijo:
So, what about a simple "the majority wins"? wrt to the directory structure? We do a vote and whatever gets more voices will be done.
Good idea! Lets vote about this topic.
Can anyone of you explain to me why it should be harmful following the proposed directory structure? I understand that some of you think that it is useless for you, but some of us (Carsten, Daniel, Bertrand, I, and maybe some others) appreciate this information at directory level.
I personally prefer a flat structure.
We are following a flat structure for our documentation - there we have seen that hierarchies can be problematic on the source level.
But we can overlay heirearchies at a navigational level, and we can have multiple orthoganal hierarchies covering a set of items in the flat structure.
It has been said that moving directories around is likely to cause confusion - where has my block gone? etc.
Build processes can read the meta info for a block and use it to both build documentation specifying which blocks are stable, verified, etc, and also package all stable blocks together, all contributed ones, all verified ones, or all blocks relating to a particular task, etc.
The principal argument against putting blocks into directories is that we cannot know now what is the most significant designation of a block.
Moving blocks into other directories is likely to be disruptive. Simply adding another line into the meta-data file isn't likely to be disruptive.
There's my thoughts. Does that help?
Regards, Upayavira
