I am not advocating fixing all capitalizations at this time, just BuildSystems.
Plus we should tell everyone to completely reclone anyways. Keeping the in consist BuildSystem just to prevent a small number of temporary hiccups is not a good idea. We're writing PETSc not lapack. Barry On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > >> >> On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> I'm in the process of migrating repos from petsc.cs.iit.edu to >>> bitbucket.org, and have to resolve a few organization issues. >>> >>> Restrictions. >>> - all repos should be lowercase >>> - no subdir organization possible [like >>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/] >>> >>> 1. Since we are forced to change reponame from 'BuildSystem' to >>> 'buildsystem' - I'd like to take this opportunity to change it to >>> 'buildsystem-dev' to be consistent with petsc-dev. i.e instructions >>> will be: >>> >>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-dev >>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem-dev >>> petsc-dev/config/BuildSystem >>> >>> or >>> >>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc-release >>> hg clone https://bitbucket.org/petsc/buildsystem-release >>> petsc-release/config/BuildSystem >>> >>> and current clones would need updates to .hg/hgrc only. >>> >>> one alternative was to change the path in source to >>> petsc-dev/config/buildsystem but it will cause some breakage and other >>> inconsistencies in source file naming scheming - so I'm against that >> >> What breakage. I really don't like having caps in one place and small >> letters in another. Horrible inconsistency > > I guess one can anticipate all issues and make configure deal with > them. [with autofix - or with an error message]. The couple of > issues I was thinking off: > > - different organization between petsc-release and buildsystem confusing > users. > - configure might automatically create a new 'buildsystem' clone - when > the user might still have BuildSystem - and attempt to make changes there. > > - bisection might need manual tweaking if if needs to go back and > forth over this changepoint [from BuildSystem to buildsystem] > > Also we won't have consistant naming of 'reop' to 'file' anyway. So I > see not much motivation to preserve the 'lowercase' part of the > attribute. > > i.e buildsystem-dev -> buildsystem > buildsystem-release -> buildsystem > > Also with this rename - lot of sourcefiles/dirs have to be renamed > [for a consistant lowercase naming scheme] - loosing annotations in > mercurial history [perhaps mercurial should handle this automatically > - but I haven't checked it in depth]. > > Satish > > > >> >> Barry >> >>> >>> another alternative is to use 'petsc', 'buildsystem', 'petsc-release', >>> 'buildsystem-release' [but we have too much baggage referring to >>> petsc-dev, with a mailing list etc reusing this name] >>> >>> 2. I plan to reorganize external package repos [that we might have >>> patches for] with a pkg prefix. >>> >>> i.e >>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/metis-5.0.2 >>> http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/externalpackages/parmetis-4.0.2 >>> >>> to: >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-metis-5.0.2 >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/pkg-parmetis-4.0.2 >>> >>> etc.. >>> >>> 3. Are AMS, ctetgen, win32fe special packages and be listed at toplevel? >>> currently ctetgen is listed under 'externalpackages'. Should it be at >>> toplevel? >>> >>> i.e >>> >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/win32fe-dev >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ams-dev >>> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/ctetgen-dev >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> thanks, >>> Satish >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
