Re: [clc-devel] contrib/opt merge: second thoughts
Hi, I'm not yet convinced that it's entirely necessary. What's the harm in having all of these things in opt? Per will simply decide what comes on the ISO. The rest being there doesn't hurt anyone.. I don't think (?) I'm not saying you're not right. I'm just saying I'm not entirely convinced yet :) Also, why not name this collection, if it comes to fruition, 'clc'? Jay Dolan Software Engineer, Systems Analyst Windmill Cycles, Inc. 508.999.4000 __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Hi,
I'm not yet convinced that it's entirely necessary. What's the harm in having all of these things in opt? I agree it's not necessary... OTOH it seemed like it wouldn't matter
Hi, On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 09:12:20 -0700, Jay Dolan wrote: that much in the end, and keeping the separation and renaming the current 'contrib' to something else would allow us to start the new contrib soon, without depending on any hosting issues. Mainly, this would allow us to focus on other things, while having a clear situation for CRUX users (a situation which I hope will be stable for some time). Also, it seemed to me that it would be clearer to the user to see that base and opt is on the CD. If only a subset of opt is on the CD, there's some kind of implicit partitioning of 'opt' anyway; expressing that with two collection names (which have the same historical meaning as opt/contrib now) would make that even more clear. That said, I'm really fine with either solution, but wanted to add these arguments to clarify my initial posting. I guess that we'll hear more opinions from other CLC guys as well, so let's wait a bit before we count votes :-). Kind regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:53:29PM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Also, it seemed to me that it would be clearer to the user to see that base and opt is on the CD. If only a subset of opt is on the CD, there's some kind of implicit partitioning of 'opt' anyway; expressing that with two collection names (which have the same historical meaning as opt/contrib now) would make that even more clear.
That said, I'm really fine with either solution, but wanted to add these arguments to clarify my initial posting. I guess that we'll hear more opinions from other CLC guys as well, so let's wait a bit before we count votes :-).
Personally I find the opt/extra separation a good idea. As you said, including only a subset of opt on the CD would be a bit confusing. And true, this would also make the transition to the new contrib repository easier. So my vote is on having opt and extra separated. :) - Jukka
participants (3)
-
Jay Dolan -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Jukka Heino