Russell Bryant wrote:
Winfried Ritsch wrote:
eg: externals/iem/comport/[trunk|branches|tags externals/iem/iemmatrix/[trunk|branches|tags ... externals/zexy/[trunk|branches|tags externals/grill/[newlib]/[trunk|branches|tags
However, I think that this externals structure sounds like a nightmare. Personally, I would _much_ prefer the following simplified structure:
externals/[trunk|branches|tags]
The latter implies that there should be separate release handling for every external. That sounds like it would be confusing and cumbersome to deal with. I think it makes more sense to package all of the "official" externals that are in svn in a single package. That isn't to say that you couldn't as a developer check out a lower level directory from svn to work just on that section ...
the separate externals reflect the separate developments by separate (groups of) people. there is no "official" externals-package that are to be packaged together, even though pd-extended makes it look like this; but pd-extended is "yet another project" that is targetted at a big get-everything package: which is fine from an end-user point-of-view, but not necessarily from a developer's point-of-view.
my initial arguing was, that for packages (like pd-extended) one could create a bundle (e.g. svn:externals) that aggragates everything needed in another subfolder. back then (search the archives for "svn migration" or similar in 2007-09) the the answer to this was: "we should not beta-test experimental features of svn" (this is what i was alluding to in my first response to this thread)
the only other project i know where a lot of plugins by a large number of independent (that is: not interdependent) developers are organized in a single svn-repository is plone, where it is handled as wini has proposed it (e.g. externals/zexy/[trunk|branches|tags]/)
probably it would be interesting to find more case-studies than just the one.
one important thing (for me) is, that i want to reference the source-code of my library (e.g. "zexy") with a single link and i want to include all the revisions of my library.
i still think that one should try to find a solution that fits most needs, and not only a few. obviously there will be no solution to fit _all_ needs, but i think one should go for "most" (aka: "as much as possible")
m.fda IOhannes