Reinhard Poetz wrote:Can anyone of you explain to me why it should be harmful following the proposed directory structure? I understand that some of you think that it is useless for you, but some of us (Carsten, Daniel, Bertrand, I, and maybe some others) appreciate this information at directory level.
I personally prefer a flat structure.
We are following a flat structure for our documentation - there we have seen that hierarchies can be problematic on the source level.
But we can overlay heirearchies at a navigational level, and we can have multiple orthoganal hierarchies covering a set of items in the flat structure.
Community support is not another hierarchial level among thousands, it is *the currency* in open software development.
It has been said that moving directories around is likely to cause confusion - where has my block gone? etc.
That's FUD, the whole lifecycle contributed->supported->deprecated is likely to take many years (for the few blocks that go through all three). And each step is a sigificant step in the blocks life and important for the users and is certainly not based on a sudden whim from the community.
Build processes can read the meta info for a block and use it to both build documentation specifying which blocks are stable, verified, etc, and also package all stable blocks together, all contributed ones, all verified ones, or all blocks relating to a particular task, etc.
The principal argument against putting blocks into directories is that we cannot know now what is the most significant designation of a block.
We certainly know: community support is by far the most significant designation of a block.
/Daniel
