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

[Bertram Ludaescher]

Chad Berkley writes:
...

 > a slightly different way.  Say kepler/dev and kepler/pubs.  That way if 
 > you only want the code part you could do 'cvs co kepler/dev'  If you 
 > want it all, you would do 'cvs co kepler'.  Just a thought.

Looks like that easiest fix to me. Any objections to this suggestion?
(Would take care of both Chad's problem and the concern that Laura raised)

BTW, I also think that a document management might be too much effort
right now. An interesting project though for someone who is interested
in that topic ..

Bertram

 > 
 > chad
 > 
 > Laura L. Downey wrote:
 > > 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?
 > > 
 > > 
 > > -shawn
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 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
 > > http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev
 > > 
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > 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
 > http://mercury.nceas.ucsb.edu/ecoinformatics/mailman/listinfo/kepler-dev