On 2/24/16 1:06 PM, aditi hilbert wrote:
Sorry to pipe up late and I know how involved the changes are but I need to understand the reasoning better to be able to document properly. For the most part I get the changes and agree with them. The only one that I am struggling with is “app” instead of “nest”. The term “application" doesn’t quite convey the sense of a collection (repo) even though that’s what it is (our larva, tadpole etc.). And the packages in such a nest (legacy term) could be composed to enable different applications in the real world from a user perspective. I am wondering whether “workspace” or “app container” or simply “repo" conveys the meaning better.
I really didn't like "repo" or "repository" -- it made sense to me, but people got confused by git repository vs our repository.
"workspace" is good too, and I'm happy to change it if people prefer that. I did application because that was the more common term (ruby on rails, node, etc.) That said, this is kinda a different space.
For context, an application is where you keep all of your packages for a class of device. Projects are where the main() function resides, and specify the set of linked packages that compose software that gets built. So think of project as the top level src/ directory, and an application as a combination of src/ and any linked libraries.
I'd really be interested in other people's thoughts here, what makes more sense to you:
[ ] workspace/application [ ] application/project Sterling
