[evla-sw-discuss] code organization

[Pete Whiteis]

    After being out yesterday, I'm still trying to figure out what 
triggered this discussion.   I thought we had a discussion/meeting on 
this a couple of years back and had commited to a plan. 

    Basically, I don't have any attachment to a particular version 
management tool.   What would cause me pain is 1) the current directory 
structure changed.  This could potentially force me to change dozens of 
Makefiles, as well as utility scripts    2) Losing tag information would 
be very bad.   I tag every release I've placed into production since 
early 2004 and I've had to fall back on at least 2 occasions. 

    We should take a hard look at quantifying the benefits of converting 
to a new repository vs the effort  involved.  If a case can be made for 
significant payback, then I'd be more agreeable.     I sure hope we have 
a chance to meet about this before any hard action is taken.

-Pete-

Rich Moeser wrote:

>Bryan Butler wrote:
>  
>
>>but i will enforce uniformity in those higher layers, however we decide is the 
>>best way to do it.
>>
>>and we haven't really even touched on the higher level organization, which, as i 
>>mentioned before, is more important in my opinion.  can we get rid of the "e2e" 
>>that we have now?  what to do about "commons"?  etc.
>>  
>>    
>>
>Currently the structure of the higher layers is as follows:
>
>NRAO (root directory)
>            -> COMMONS (this contains reusable classes that can be used 
>by any project and by non-nrao developers, AngleFormat, AstroDate, 
>MathLib, and Util)
>            -> EVLA
>                           -> OBSERVE
>                           -> TRANSITION
>                           -> ARCHIVE
>                           -> COMMONS (reusable components and static 
>classes that only EVLA projects would use)
>                           ....etc, etc, etc
>            -> VLA
>                           ->JOBSERVE
>            -> VLBA
>                            -> OMS
>                           -> VLCj
>            -> E2E (this would be SSS)
>                            -> PST
>                            -> VOSERVER
>
>I'm quite satisfied with this directory structure. It's simple, natural 
>and difficult to get lost in. The root directory NRAO might seem a bit 
>unnecessary but it allows for other roots such as VENDOR, DRAO, or 
>whatever. I would probably change the COMMONS so that several types of 
>commons projects can exist. For example the EVLA project could have 
>COMMONS-UTIL (utility classes used exclusively by evla) and COMMONS-NET 
>(evla communications and network classes). (And, yes, I think the term 
>"commons" should be kept, indicating a collection of general purpose 
>classes.)
>
>I think E2E should be replaced with SSS and remain a subdirectory of NRAO.
>
>--Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>evla-sw-discuss mailing list
>evla-sw-discuss at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evla-sw-discuss
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pwhiteis.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 144 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listmgr.nrao.edu/pipermail/evla-sw-discuss/attachments/20061026/6c7b6362/attachment.vcf>