cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Fagerstrom <dani...@nada.kth.se>
Subject Re: Supported and unsupported blocks
Date Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:27:23 GMT
Upayavira wrote:
> 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

Mime
View raw message