> This could be the root of my reservations. Why do you think people always talk about re-organize? :-)
> Indeed, I don't get what I'm saying either. > My organisation is something like (slightly over-simplified), > > _lib/Example/Control/section_a.pm > _lib/Example/Control/section_b.pm > _lib/Example/Control/section_c.pm > _lib/Example/Config/section_a.pm > _lib/Example/Config/section_b.pm > _lib/Example/Config/section_c.pm > _lib/Example/Model/section_c.pm > _lib/Example/Model/section_c.pm > _lib/Example/Model/section_c.pm > _tmpl/section_a/view1.html > _tmpl/section_a/view2.html > _tmpl/section_a/view3.html > _tmpl/section_b/view1.html > _tmpl/section_b/view2.html > _tmpl/section_b/view3.html > _tmpl/section_c/view1.html > _tmpl/section_c/view2.html > _tmpl/section_c/view3.html > > I though CVS was more suited for something which looks more like > _lib/Example/Section_a/Control > _lib/Example/Section_a/Model > _lib/Example/Section_a/View/1 > _lib/Example/Section_a/View/2 > _lib/Example/Section_a/View/3 > etc.... > > i.e. more suited to a "procedural" orangisation than an "object" > organisation In fact, CVS doesn't complain about how you organize your files. As long as they are in directories, CVS seems to work fine! Of course your organization needs to fit your needs -- for you to easily find what you want, but that's out of the scope of the CVS discussion. Chang-Ping .
