On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 12:03:09PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
> I think we should do something about the confusing structure of the
> cvs tree ASAP. It's been mentioned before IIRC, but I can't remember
> if anything was decided.
I'm all for hacking the repository, if only we can. <rhet>Is there an
FAQ on messing with the repository?</rhet>
> Firstly, does anyone have any objections to cvs
> removing Test-Unit-0.06? (This won't stop anyone being able to
> retrieve it if they really want, of course.)
I haven't really looked at it, I'd like to hear what Christian has to
say about it. Also a 'cvs remove' doesn't help the people using cvsweb
'cos there's still a forest of directories.
Folks using proper cvs have Piers' modules file to reshape their world
anyway.
> Secondly, it's unclear to newbies (including me ;-) what UnitTests/
> and api/ are there for. Again, I vote we cvs remove, as this reduces
> confusion while maintaining accessibility.
I think the api/ directory has some useful stuff in it about the way
the API was inheritted from JUnit. This is probably worth refining,
although Brians board comment was that it should be fairly concise.
> Thirdly, ideally we would rename Test-Unit-0.1 to Test-Unit, or
> maybe src (although src is already the name of the cvs module for
> some reason).
We already have the module
Test-Unit src/Test-Unit-0.1
which is why I suggested just adding a src/README or
src/Test-Unit-0.1_is-active file to keep the cvsweb users quiet.
> The problem with this is that sourceforge doesn't allow us
> access to our repository,
Is this definite?
> Hence the need to do it ASAP, unless we could persuade sourceforge
> to mangle the repository or something.
If we can mangle directly, presumably we'd do
mv src/Test-Unit-0.1 Test-Unit
mv src historic
?
Matthew #8-)
_______________________________________________
Perlunit-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perlunit-devel
