Re: [stem-dev] SVN Directory Structure

[Stefan Edlund <edlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Assuming we have to do this "split up" into components right now (so we don't create svn artifacts that we can't delete later). Otherwise I'd prefer if we made the move as painless as possible.

So like:

/trunk/components/core
/trunk/components/rcp
/trunk/components/geography
/trunk/components/transport
/trunk/components/diseasemodelling
/trunk/components/releng
/trunk/components/utility
/trunk/components/doc
...
Anything else? Where does internal.data belong containing the master ant script? Should we try and come up with a mapping table, old path -> new path for every project?

/ Stefan


Stefan Edlund
Public Health and Computer Science Research
IBM Almaden Research Center
(408) 927-1766 edlund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Daniel Ford ---06/03/2009 02:23:59 PM---Seems like a reasonable structure. Breaking out STEM so that diseases and geography are completely separate would be a good thi

Daniel Ford <daford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: stem-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/03/2009 02:21 PM

Please respond to
STEM developer mailing list <stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	STEM developer mailing list <stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [stem-dev] SVN Directory Structure

Seems like a reasonable structure. Breaking out STEM so that diseases and geography are completely separate would be a good thing. Ideally, STEM would be a small RCP that then goes to an update site that pulls in the disease modeling and geography features that turn it into a disease modeling system (rather than something else) would be a good thing. The basic RCP and its "extensions" could be developed and maintained independently. Decoupling is good. Perhaps "designing" separate "components" in the repository would map to such an approach.

Maybe the next step is to discuss a breakdown of STEM into its "Components".

Strawman components:
Core Models (graph, scenario, experiment, etc.)
RCP
Geography
Transportation
Disease Modeling
...

Thoughts?

Dan

Matthew Davis---06/03/2009 05:06:13 PM---Hi all,

Matthew Davis/Almaden/IBM@IBMUS
Sent by: stem-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/03/2009 05:04 PM

Please respond to
STEM developer mailing list <stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject	[stem-dev] SVN Directory Structure

Hi all,

On the call today, there was a discussion about directory structure for the SVN move. It was decided that we should follow a consistent naming scheme to what other Eclipse projects are using.

For SVN, you have the three default roots, used for tagged revision control:

- trunk
- tags
- branches

Some Eclipse Projects are moving toward a more standardized sub-convention based on workspace project type.

For example, in the Equinox repository, in the trunk they have:

- compendium
- components
- framework
- incubator
.. etc

and then inside of some of those directories, you see:

- bundles
- features
- examples
- tests

In my opinion, separating bundles, features, examples, and tests is a good strategy (although it slightly complicates checkout). Should there be any higher granularity to the separation (maybe data, models, or geography?) Also, should there be a higher level separation between logical components of STEM (core, diseases, UI, etc)?

-Matt_______________________________________________
stem-dev mailing list
stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stem-dev
(See attached file: pic12986.gif)_______________________________________________
stem-dev mailing list
stem-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/stem-dev

Attachment: pic12986.gif
Description: GIF image