On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:57:34PM +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > > > And I think nobody disagrees with that. Status page (suggested somewhere up > > the > > thread) indicating the status of the block, some additional information > > about > > the block, etc, will accomplish this even with flat directory structure in > > SVN. > > > > What exactly changing directory structure buys you? If there is clear and > > structured documentation about the blocks (it can use structure like > > supported/unsupported/contributed/abandoned/whatever) and similarly > > structured > > hierarchy in the sample webapp, what, on top of this, directory structure > > in SVN > > gives? > > > > I'm not so against moving stuff, but I'm just trying to understand why to > > move. > > > Documenting the state is one thing, but imho just doing this in some > descriptor isn't very visible. Who reads documentation or looks into a > meta descriptor? :) > So, by using a directory structure, it's immediately visible for everyone.
If the documentation is clear and easy to find and read, and the user still does not bother to check it how are we going to give them any help? ...by also putting this documentation where they will read it, embedded in the samples pages, just like the current stable/unstable distinction. FWIW, When I evaluate other projects I view distinction of modules via directories with a grain of salt, because I know there is a higher threshold (more inertia) to moving directories around to mantain an accurate reflection of status than to just update a descriptor. --Tim Larson
