[kepler-dev] breaking off a kepler-docs repository

Laura L. Downey ldowney at lternet.edu
Thu Aug 4 11:06:25 PDT 2005

I thought the point was having everything in one place -- which is important
with a distributed project.  At least that is the impression I've gotten
from Matt.

It would seem that people are "checking out" instead of "updating" with CVS
because update is much quicker.  But I think I remember Dan telling me the
other day that it is "safer" to check out than to update.

I'm fine with whatever is decided, keeping things together or splitting them
apart.  My only comment is that the more repositories we have and the more
places we have to go to get and put data (docs, code etc), the more upkeep
that is for everyone.

Laura L. Downey
Senior Usability Engineer
LTER Network Office
Department of Biology, MSC03 2020
1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM  87131-0001
505.277.3157 phone
505.277-2541 fax
ldowney at lternet.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: kepler-dev-bounces at ecoinformatics.org
[mailto:kepler-dev-bounces at ecoinformatics.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Bowers
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:02 PM
To: Chad Berkley
Cc: Kepler-Dev
Subject: Re: [kepler-dev] breaking off a kepler-docs repository

I think it is a good idea to *not* include the various publications and 
presentations concerning Kepler in the code repository (cvs).

I wonder, however, if having a separate cvs for documents is the way to 
go.  Instead, maybe we should consider using a more traditional approach 
like a document management system? I'm sure there are a number of 
open-source/free ones out there (e.g., zope and plone are popular ones, 
the stanford publication server is an older one).  Perhaps there are 
also extensions of the wiki for this?


Chad Berkley wrote:
> Hi all,
> As I sit here checking out kepler (again), waiting forever for the docs 
> directory to finish, it occured to me that it might be ok to have a 
> different cvs repository for kepler docs.  there's no reason why a 
> developer should have to checkout out a myriad of .doc and .ppt files 
> everytime you need a new version of kepler.  It seems to me that docs 
> that actually go with the kepler software should stay in the kepler 
> repository, but publications, reports and the like could be stashed 
> somewhere else.  Anyone have any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
> thanks,
> chad
> _______________________________________________
> Kepler-dev mailing list
> Kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev

Kepler-dev mailing list
Kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org

More information about the Kepler-dev mailing list