Russell Bryant wrote: > Winfried Ritsch wrote: >> eg: >> externals/iem/comport/[trunk|branches|tags >> externals/iem/iemmatrix/[trunk|branches|tags >> ... >> externals/zexy/[trunk|branches|tags >> externals/grill/[newlib]/[trunk|branches|tags > > However, I think that this externals structure sounds like a nightmare. > Personally, I would _much_ prefer the following simplified structure: > > externals/[trunk|branches|tags] > > The latter implies that there should be separate release handling for every > external. That sounds like it would be confusing and cumbersome to deal with. > I think it makes more sense to package all of the "official" externals that > are > in svn in a single package. That isn't to say that you couldn't as a > developer > check out a lower level directory from svn to work just on that section ... >
the separate externals reflect the separate developments by separate (groups of) people. there is no "official" externals-package that are to be packaged together, even though pd-extended makes it look like this; but pd-extended is "yet another project" that is targetted at a big get-everything package: which is fine from an end-user point-of-view, but not necessarily from a developer's point-of-view. my initial arguing was, that for packages (like pd-extended) one could create a bundle (e.g. svn:externals) that aggragates everything needed in another subfolder. back then (search the archives for "svn migration" or similar in 2007-09) the the answer to this was: "we should not beta-test experimental features of svn" (this is what i was alluding to in my first response to this thread) the only other project i know where a lot of plugins by a large number of independent (that is: not interdependent) developers are organized in a single svn-repository is plone, where it is handled as wini has proposed it (e.g. externals/zexy/[trunk|branches|tags]/) probably it would be interesting to find more case-studies than just the one. one important thing (for me) is, that i want to reference the source-code of my library (e.g. "zexy") with a single link and i want to include all the revisions of my library. i still think that one should try to find a solution that fits most needs, and not only a few. obviously there will be no solution to fit _all_ needs, but i think one should go for "most" (aka: "as much as possible") m.fda IOhannes _______________________________________________ PD-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
