I want to be very clear that my tone here is emotionless! I'm totally indifferent.
Now, please explain: how is a new directory make version control easier? I don't buy it. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org> wrote: > The change is not purely aesthetic; it means that the "my app" portions of > the structure are now contained in a single directory, and easier to > version control. > > This change gets more expensive every day. If we're ever going to do it, it > should be done now, I believe. > > It seems like the (not universally supported) consensus from the first pass > at this thread was to keep the app/ dir but have automatic detection and > ask-then-automatic conversion. > > If that approach is still acceptable, I will implement that support today > before we tag CLI for 2.8. > > Braden > > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Fil, good summary, thanks for that. I also agree with your proposal. >> Would it be possible to just support both options starting now, and >> "deprecate" www/ at the top level in 3.0? >> >> Brian, this isn't just aesthetics, but its true that either option can, >> with varying difficulty, be made to work for all use cases. >> >> Migration path is trivial but will be paid by all users, still, workflows >> will change completely with 3.0 anyway, this being the least of the >> changes. Which decision is more likely to be regretted a year from now? >> >> -Michal >> >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org >> >wrote: >> >> > I don't really think this directory change is a big deal. We break things >> > in almost every release (e.g. loading pages of http), yet we're having so >> > much debate over alpha tool. >> > >> > The migration path is: mkdir app && git mv www merges app && git mv >> > app/www/config.xml app >> > >> > I think the least amount of work here is to just console.log an error >> > message with this command if the app/ directory is not found. >> > >> > >> > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Tommy-Carlos Williams >> > <to...@devgeeks.org>wrote: >> > >> > > Is it bad that I both agree vehemently with Brian's calling it not >> > > beneficial enough to justify, but also really really like the proposed >> > > structure better that the current one? hehe. >> > > >> > > *so… conflicted...* >> > > >> > > - tommy >> > > >> > > On 23/05/2013, at 7:35 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> > > >> > > > There are two paths. I argue there is no functional benefit and that >> > > > this change is purely aesthetic. Aesthetics are important but I'd >> > > > argue folder structure is the last part of the developer aesthetics >> we >> > > > should worry about and especially not beneficial enough to justify a >> > > > breaking change. >> > > > >> > > > Today: >> > > > >> > > > ./ >> > > > |- merges/ >> > > > |- platforms/ >> > > > |- plugins/ >> > > > '- www/ >> > > > |- index.html >> > > > '- config.xml >> > > > >> > > > Proposed: >> > > > >> > > > ./ >> > > > |- platforms/ >> > > > |- plugins/ >> > > > '- app/ >> > > > |- merges/ >> > > > |- www/ >> > > > | '- index.html >> > > > '- config.xml >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > > >> I'm reviving this discussion re: additional app/ folder in the >> > > >> cli-generated project structure. >> > > >> >> > > >> To recap, there were two main discussions: >> > > >> >> > > >> A) >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> http://apache.markmail.org/thread/syo24cwvhpkxqfdm#query:+page:1+mid:j76xli >> > > >> hsfjmvwtoi+state:results >> > > >> B) http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cordova.apache.org/msg05775.html >> > > >> >> > > >> Arguments for moving to app/: >> > > >> >> > > >> - easier to version control relevant / non-build-artifact app bits >> > > >> - aesthetics >> > > >> >> > > >> Arguments against it: >> > > >> >> > > >> - we break shit for users >> > > >> - config.xml location and PhoneGap Build compatibility (but I don't >> > see >> > > >> this as a valid argument against. This is an easy problem to solve >> for >> > > us >> > > >> Adobe folk and the tooling can handle the trivial steps of going up >> > one >> > > >> directory to grab the right file before interfacing with Build) >> > > >> >> > > >> Also worth noting: people we're not against it for architectural >> > > reasons, >> > > >> in fact, most people were favorable for the change to app/. >> > > >> >> > > >> So, with plugman stabilizing and my focus moving to cli work, I >> feel I >> > > >> have a good grasp of both projects and the direction they are going, >> > > here >> > > >> is my suggestion on how to move forward with this: >> > > >> >> > > >> 1. cordova-cli's master branch, which will soon merge future work >> in, >> > > will >> > > >> revert to the old /www-based structure, then >> > > >> 2. In 3.0 we make the change, where landing such a breaking change >> is >> > > >> easier and we'll have a bunch of press/noise about the release out >> > there >> > > >> too so communicating this change would be easier. >> > > >> >> > > >> If there are any other arguments for/against the app/ based >> structure, >> > > now >> > > >> is the time to bring it up. We can give this some more time to bake, >> > but >> > > >> after 2.8 is released, I'd like to call a vote on whether we should >> > move >> > > >> to this structure or not in 3.0. >> > > >> >> > > >> On 4/16/13 8:31 AM, "Michal Mocny" <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> I should also add. I appreciate that this is a change, and every >> > > change >> > > >>> has some learning overhead and we shouldn't stuff everything >> possible >> > > in >> > > >>> all the time. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> However, I think 3.0 and cli are a big change, and we should do the >> > big >> > > >>> re-org all at once, so lets decide this now in a way we wont >> regret. >> > > >>> Thats >> > > >>> why we are being picky, I guess. I like knowing that the root of >> the >> > > >>> project has cordova-only artifacts and your app-repo is just a >> > > >>> subdirectory >> > > >>> somewhere. Then, the exact location and exact contents are way >> more >> > > >>> flexible. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -Michal >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Michal Mocny < >> mmo...@chromium.org> >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> Okay, we've got options, so lets try to distill the details. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> First, some of the other (perceived) benefits of an app folder >> are: >> > > >>>> * we do a raw cp -r of the www/ folder, and so that should have >> only >> > > >>>> platform agnostic and "necessary" files. >> > > >>>> * merges folder was removed from www/ because it did not meet >> above >> > > >>>> criteria, and config.xml is another candidate >> > > >>>> * there also potentially exist docs/ (useful for shared apps, like >> > > >>>> mobile-spec), platform specific resource files (icons, splash >> > screen), >> > > >>>> etc >> > > >>>> * a git repository is already basically mirroring the concept of >> the >> > > >>>> "app >> > > >>>> folder" >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> So, I've come up with the following potential workflows for >> starting >> > > >>>> with >> > > >>>> an existing app: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> #1: "your app repo is moved into some subdirectory of a cordova >> > > project >> > > >>>> -- >> > > >>>> its exact location is basically a cordova artifact" >> > > >>>> cordova create Foo >> > > >>>> cd Foo >> > > >>>> cordova app add [--link] git-repo/local-repo (nicely akin to >> plugin >> > > >>>> add) >> > > >>>> cordova plugin/platforms add ... >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> #2: "your app repo becomes a cordova project in-place" >> > > >>>> git clone FooApp (this repo contains merges/ and www/) >> > > >>>> cordova create FooApp Foo (cli should not clobber existing >> folders) >> > > >>>> cd FooApp >> > > >>>> set up .gitignore for cordova artifacts (cordova should try not >> to >> > > >>>> introduce new artifacts) >> > > >>>> cordova plugin/platforms add ... >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> #3: "what we have now" >> > > >>>> git clone FooApp >> > > >>>> cordova create Foo >> > > >>>> cp -R FooApp/{www,merges,...} Foo (or ln -s) >> > > >>>> cd Foo >> > > >>>> cordova plugin/platforms add ... >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> (Please let me know of more workflows) >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Workflow #1 I think is very clean, and requires an app folder >> > concept >> > > >>>> (we >> > > >>>> could maybe use a temporary intermediate folder to get around >> this, >> > > but >> > > >>>> why). >> > > >>>> Workflow #2 essentially your app repo is the app folder concept, >> but >> > > now >> > > >>>> the cordova artifacts also go inside it. Would require minimal >> > > changes >> > > >>>> to >> > > >>>> cordova-cli to not clobber, and requires gitignore. >> > > >>>> Workflow #3 is what we have now, which I think is the worst option >> > for >> > > >>>> app >> > > >>>> management, but can work with or without an app folder. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Also, I think it would be great if apps had both plugin and >> platform >> > > >>>> dependancies, such that you could distill workflow #1 down to: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> cordova create Foo >> > > >>>> cd Foo >> > > >>>> cordova app add git-repo >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> .. and it would run the plugin/platform add automatically. Can >> even >> > > get >> > > >>>> that down to a single "cordova create git-repo" line. That would >> > make >> > > >>>> sharing apps, such as mobile-spec-test, really trivial. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> -Michal >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Andrew Grieve >> > > >>>> <agri...@chromium.org>wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> So, reading through the thread Braden linked to: >> > > >>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cordova.apache.org/msg05775.html >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> There are two advantage that were brought up: >> > > >>>>> 1. config.xml (configuration) does not live along side of app >> > > resources >> > > >>>>> 2. It will make it easier to package apps >> > > >>>>> - E.g. zip the app/ directory and install it into the >> app-harness >> > > >>>>> (instead of zipping www + merges). Likewise for phonegap build. >> > > >>>>> - E.g. cordova-mobile-spec would contain the contents of app/. >> > With >> > > >>>>> our >> > > >>>>> current setup, it would contain www/ merges/, and have the CLI >> > place >> > > >>>>> build >> > > >>>>> artifacts within the repo's directory instead of as a sibling to >> > it. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> I think everyone acknowledged the benefits, but there was still >> > > >>>>> not consensus over whether it was "worth it". >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> I don't really feel strongly about it. Braden says it's easy to >> > > change >> > > >>>>> code-wise. Does anyone want to go to bat for it? >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> >> wrote: >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> I'd rather we did not go ahead w/ the new directory structure. >> It >> > > >>>>> offers no >> > > >>>>>> functional benefit, and comes at an upgrade cost for ppl using >> the >> > > >>>>> CLI >> > > >>>>>> tools today. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> > > agri...@chromium.org >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Just catching up on the past week of emails and it's not clear >> > that >> > > >>>>> there >> > > >>>>>>> was a consensus here. By the sounds of it though: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> 1. Lots of users are using Cordova-CLI (master branch) >> > > >>>>>>> 2. Cordova-CLI's "future" branch has non-backwards-compatible >> > > >>>>> changes. >> > > >>>>>>> 3. One of these changes is the directory structure. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> The main debate is on how to message these changes to users. >> What >> > > >>>>> we >> > > >>>>>> should >> > > >>>>>>> do is: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> 1. Have an upgrade guide. (e.g. paths are now relative to >> > > >>>>> plugin.xml) >> > > >>>>>>> 2. Ensure that our error handling shows useful messages when >> they >> > > >>>>> result >> > > >>>>>>> from an old-way-of-doing-things (e.g. your app's structure >> > doesn't >> > > >>>>>> match.) >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Rather than printing out the commands to run to convert their >> > > >>>>> project, >> > > >>>>>>> maybe we could have them in the upgrade guide and have the >> error >> > > >>>>> messages >> > > >>>>>>> point to the guide? >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Tim Kim <timki...@gmail.com> >> > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> Braden I have merged master and the future branch: >> > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/timkim/plugman/tree/future_master_merge >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> I think it's about ready to merge back in to future. I've >> gotten >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>> android-one-install and the ios-config-xml-install (minus one >> > > >>>>> weird >> > > >>>>>> test >> > > >>>>>>> I >> > > >>>>>>>> don't understand) working. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> On 10 April 2013 14:42, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> As far as I am concerned I don't really have a strong opinion >> > > >>>>> on >> > > >>>>> this >> > > >>>>>>>>> topic. As I said in the previous thread, I do like this new >> > > >>>>> directory >> > > >>>>>>>>> structure and if you have it there and tested then fine. We >> > > >>>>> break >> > > >>>>>> shit >> > > >>>>>>>> all >> > > >>>>>>>>> the time it's not like this change is one too many. What >> > > >>>>> matters >> > > >>>>> is >> > > >>>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>> communicate it to our users and give them an upgrade path to >> > > >>>>> this >> > > >>>>> new >> > > >>>>>>> app >> > > >>>>>>>>> structure (the Cordova docs are a good place for that). >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> However, I agree with Brian that there are more important >> > > >>>>> things >> > > >>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>> tackle >> > > >>>>>>>>> right now. Now sure what you had on your list but since js >> only >> > > >>>>>> modules >> > > >>>>>>>> are >> > > >>>>>>>>> in Plugman right now (untested) The next big thing that is >> > > >>>>> going >> > > >>>>> to >> > > >>>>>> be >> > > >>>>>>>>> non-trivial is: plugin dependencies (which will in some ways >> > > >>>>> involve >> > > >>>>>>>>> discovery I think). We should have a discussion about that >> > > >>>>> (hangout, >> > > >>>>>>> IRC, >> > > >>>>>>>>> connect...whatever). I have a couple of ideas about that. >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Tim is working on fixing/adding/updating plugman tests and it >> > > >>>>> looks >> > > >>>>>>> like >> > > >>>>>>>>> he's making good progress on it. >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> -a >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Michael Wolf < >> > > >>>>>>> michael.w...@cynergy.com >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I get the intention, however anything we can do to reduce >> > > >>>>> this >> > > >>>>> type >> > > >>>>>>> of >> > > >>>>>>>>>> breaking change should be done. These type of changes >> > > >>>>> should >> > > >>>>> be >> > > >>>>>>>>>> considered for major releases only so users can plan for >> > > >>>>> them. >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> mw >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/13 5:05 PM, "Jesse" <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to the sanity plea of devgeek Tommy >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Also, if it didn't happen on this list, .... >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'Consensus' should always be tracked back to a thread here, >> > > >>>>>>> regardless >> > > >>>>>>>>> of >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> meetings, hangouts, irc, bbs, ... >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @purplecabbage >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> risingj.com >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM, tommy-carlos Williams >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> <to...@devgeeks.org>wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but as someone that helps users everyday, the >> > > >>>>> almost >> > > >>>>>> "it's >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> they shoulda seen it coming" tone of this is a bit >> > > >>>>> upsetting. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It reminds me of before the deprecation policy, etc when >> > > >>>>>> PhoneGap >> > > >>>>>>>>> would >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> completely break everything whenever a new version came >> > > >>>>> out. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I feel like we have come a long way since then (with a >> > > >>>>> ways >> > > >>>>>> still >> > > >>>>>>> to >> > > >>>>>>>>> go, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> no question about it). I would hate to be the one in IRC >> > > >>>>> and on >> > > >>>>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Google >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Group list having to explain this to everyone using the >> > > >>>>> cli. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was under the impression that the cli was "shipping" >> > > >>>>> now, >> > > >>>>> not >> > > >>>>>>>> just a >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> little side thing. I know that quite a few people are >> > > >>>>> using >> > > >>>>> it >> > > >>>>>> for >> > > >>>>>>>>> real >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> apps (myself included). If that is true, then we have a >> > > >>>>> duty >> > > >>>>> to >> > > >>>>>> at >> > > >>>>>>>>> least >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> think very carefully before breaking something and come up >> > > >>>>> with >> > > >>>>>> a >> > > >>>>>>>> good >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> plan >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> for easing that transition. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> - tommy >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2013, at 1:40, Braden Shepherdson < >> > > >>>>> bra...@chromium.org >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This mailing list post is, or will shortly be, indexed >> > > >>>>> by >> > > >>>>>> Google >> > > >>>>>>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> others. Any newcomers will see the new docs and create >> > > >>>>> new >> > > >>>>>>>> projects. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I mentioned on IRC, existing users are either >> > > >>>>> accepting >> > > >>>>> or >> > > >>>>>>>>> ignoring >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "alpha" warnings that this software is new and under >> > > >>>>> heavy >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> development, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if they want to jump on it early they're going to have >> > > >>>>> to >> > > >>>>>> expect >> > > >>>>>>>>> some >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> pain. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I don't really know of any better way to >> > > >>>>> socialize >> > > >>>>>>> it. >> > > >>>>>>>> Is >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> there >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere where a brief blog post on this would make >> > > >>>>> sense? >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how many people are using these tools and >> > > >>>>> not >> > > >>>>> on >> > > >>>>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mailing >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> list, though certainly some turn up on IRC occasionally. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Braden >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Filip Maj >> > > >>>>> <f...@adobe.com> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will we communicate this change to our existing >> > > >>>>> users? >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/13 5:22 PM, "Braden Shepherdson" < >> > > >>>>> bra...@chromium.org >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just pushed a change to the future branch that >> > > >>>>> changes >> > > >>>>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> directory >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure to: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> app/ >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merges/ >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> android/ >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ios/ >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www/ >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config.xml >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As was discussed at our video conference meeting a >> > > >>>>> couple of >> > > >>>>>>>> weeks >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ago, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this has a number of advantages: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - config.xml is no longer in the www/ directory >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - One can easily version control the whole app/ >> > > >>>>> directory, >> > > >>>>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>> get >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> their >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> web assets, merges and so on into the repo. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - That repo can contain additional information: a >> > > >>>>> README.md, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> supplementary >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documentation, tests, whatever. The CLI will ignore >> > > >>>>> anything >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> outside of >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merges and www directories. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The downside is that this is a breaking change: >> > > >>>>> running >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>> new >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> version of >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tools on an old project will fail (but I think in >> > > >>>>> a >> > > >>>>>>> harmless >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> way) >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you rearrange the directories. You can do that with >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>>>>> following >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mkdir app >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mv www/config.xml app >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mv www app >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $ mv merges app >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All docs and tests are updated as well. Any problems >> > > >>>>> should >> > > >>>>>> be >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> reported on >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA and assigned to me. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Braden >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> -- >> > > >>>>>>>> Timothy Kim >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
