Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Tim Larson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:25:35PM +0100, Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
I propose to reflect these lifecycle-states in our SVN directory structure.
Why do you think directory structure is required here at all? What's wrong with plain list of all blocks in one directory?
IIRC the idea was to give a quick overview of the current status. Having a list iwth 50+ blocks makes it more difficult.
This overview can be accomplished in better ways than by inducing churn in the svn archive as projects change state.
Moving things in SVN is not that hard.
Why not just make the current state of a block be reflected in its meta-data and then use this to generate documentation pages with separate lists of the groups of blocks in different states?
And we already have this for stable/unstable blocks - see .../samples/blocks/.
Vadim
Can't we put the whiteboard code in the trunk as well and let the compile script decide what should be included in the builds based on meta data in the source files ;)
--- o0o ---
Am I and Reinhard the only ones that are concerned about what the 50+ blocks in an unordered lump in Cocoon does for the perception about our project?
If we stop whishful thinking and feeling pitty for blocks with few supporters for a while, it is enough to take a look at the SVN log to see that we have our share of more or less abandoned one man shows. There are quite a few blocks that hasn't been touched in any essentail way for a year or more. Blocks where all work have been done by one person, that in some cases haven't been around for long. Blocks that nearly never are discussed on the list.
IMO it is an esential service for our users that we in a honest and realistic way tell what we actually, in practicem, with real work, support rather than what we whish we supported.
/Daniel
