Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives use cases

[Robert Anderson]

On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 07:07, Clark McGrew wrote:
> Consider a hypothetical first year graduate student faced with several
> megabytes of source code, and unfamiliar with all of it.  She has been
> asked to compile and run something by tomorrow so the results can be
> discussed *now*.  How is this student suppose to find all of the
> categories needed to run her program.

By using a config.

  Particularly if the packages are
> spread over several other peoples archives?

Operationally irrelevant.  This is recorded in the config.

> A config package will solve
> the distribution problem, but the next step will be to make a change in
> the code.  It is very helpful if newcomers are faced with a logical
> naming scheme.  Side documentation helps, but good organization is
> essential.

One such convention which might be helpful is to name personal branches
with your initials, for recording local changes, and for recording the
"main" branch as "main", "devo", or some other convention of your
choosing.

> My current thinking is to divide the archives by working group

What is a "working group."

> "require" the working groups to provide a config category.  A top level
> config package will then bring all of the working groups together.
> 
> superk--release/
>      configs/
>      base-libraries--release/
>       configs/
>         skread--release/
>         zbs--release/
>         geom--release/
>       iolib--release/
>         etc...
>      atmpd--release/
>         configs/
>         etc...
>      lowe--release/
>      upmu--release/
>      online--release/
>      offline--release/
>      sk-k2k--release/
>      etc...
> 
> The goal is that the levels are isolated.

What is a "level"?  Does it represent some sort of code dependency? 
What do you mean by "isolated"?

  For instance superk--release
> won't worry about the specifics in base-libraries

"Won't worry about"?  In what respect?

>and hopefully each
> sub-group becomes a manageable namespace.

I'm sorry but "each sub-group becomes a manageable namespace" conveys no
meaning to me.  I think you are using a lot of undefined terms here, and
it becomes difficult to understand you.

> The next step is to play with it and see if I can make it work from a
> technical point of view.

Please do.  You might come up with some good questions that way.

> I'm getting the impression that I'm heading
> into new territory as far as using tla in a largish academic
> collaboration.

Probably.

> I see real advantages gained by using distributed
> development archives where each person keeps local branches for
> categories that they are working on.

As you should.

> The trick will be to setup a
> structure to keep the flexibility from degenerating into chaos.

Definitely true.  And it will undoubtedly take some practice and false
starts before you work it out.  I wouldn't go public for awhile.

Bob