On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Ingrid von der Mehden <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 16.08.2011 19:04, schrieb Rob Weir: >> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Ingrid von der Mehden >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Am 16.08.2011 16:21, schrieb Rob Weir: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Ingrid von der Mehden >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Am 15.08.2011 18:46, schrieb Rob Weir: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> ooo/trunk/core --- all the OOO340 stuff >>>>>> ooo/trunk/l10n -- all the language stuff >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually I would suggest to name the directory 'main' instead of >>>>> 'core'. >>>>> The term 'core' is used already in several modules within the OOo >>>>> source >>>>> code, where it does imply that this is something without user interface >>>>> (more the model part in MVC pattern). So using the term 'core' for the >>>>> whole >>>>> office (including user interface) is misleading and could create >>>>> confusion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Note what we already have in SVN: >>>> >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/ >>>> >>>> We're mixing site files, and source in the same repository. >>>> >>>> I wonder if we want a "src" directory that is a sibling of "site". >>>> And then "main" and "extras" under that? >>>> >>> >>> I just searched through the different Apache projects and the scheme as >>> we >>> have it is quite common: >>> >>> 'Apache Project'/site >>> 'Apache Project'/trunk >>> 'Apache Project'/branches >>> 'Apache Project'/tags >>> >>> Those directories can be found very often. I think it is not too bad to >>> stay >>> with the common scheme. This makes it easier to switch between projects >>> for >>> all Apache committers. >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> If we instead choose to have a src directory next to site, I would vote >>> to >>> put trunk, branches and tags into it. All the different code lines are >>> all >>> src, they belong together. So we would have: >>> >>> ooo/site >>> ooo/src/trunk/main >>> ooo/src/trunk/extras >>> ooo/src/branches >>> ooo/src/tags >>> >>> This will lead to an additional directory in the path. But the logical >>> grouping is cleaner. A pitfall might be that some people might expect >>> only >>> source code in a directory called src and not things like help content or >>> translation. >>> >>> So I still prefer: >>> ooo/trunk/main --- all the OOO340 stuff >>> ooo/trunk/extras/l10n -- all the language stuff >>> >> >> OK. I'll do that for the the next run. This will be Linux, with your >> directory structure. Should be ready in 3 hours or so. >> > > Cool, thanks a lot! > My svn repository from the previous dump file is still in load process, so I > haven't seen the concrete structure in l10n so far. > Is there a directory duplication l10n/l10n? >
I don't think so. In the new version I'm dumping right now we have: ooo/trunk/extras/l10n and then under there we have: ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/prj ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/source ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/util > I think it should be sufficient if we technically import the l10n repository > directly into the extras directory. This should then lead to pathes like > this: > ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/source > and not > ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/l10n/source > Right. > Kind regards, > Ingrid > >>> Kind regards, >>> Ingrid >>> >>>>> I would also put the l10n stuff into a further directory. Those people >>>>> who >>>>> have no idea what l10n might be, could benefit from a simpler name >>>>> 'extras'. >>>>> This makes the first browsing experience in the source code less >>>>> frightening. >>>>> >>>>> So I would suggest: >>>>> ooo/trunk/main --- all the OOO340 stuff >>>>> ooo/trunk/extras/l10n -- all the language stuff >>>>> >>>>> The full proposal was here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201108.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Ingrid >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
