Personally, I see no need for action, but I wouldn't
strongly oppose changes, either.
--Thilo
Marshall Schor wrote:
I'm thinking about some re-org of our SVN layout based on these
observations
-We're getting a lot of components. Many of these are on somewhat
different release cycles.
-We initially had a "main" node, a cpp node, a site note and a sandbox
node. The sandbox was for new-ish things. As some of these things get
more "mainline" - it would make sense to have them perhaps under another
node to indicate that. The idea would be that things in the sandbox
were user-beware, but things in this other node were more "dependable"
and "proven".
Possible names for this other node might be: "parts". Or we might want
to have several names that categorized the kinds of things - such as
"annotators", "servers", "embeddings", "corpora", "typeSystems",
"tools", etc.
-The SVN conventions lean toward having branches and tags which are one
level above the thing being released. Right now, for sandbox projects,
these are 2 levels above the released thing. I think that, going
forward, it would be better to go with the convention, following the
convention-over-configuration philosophy, because the components are not
likely to all be released on the same release cycle (although that would
be a nice "goal" - like Eclipse does with it's many-part major releases).
Other opinions?
-Marshall
