On 5/12/05, Dries Buytaert <dries@buytaert.net> wrote:
Not sure that I understand you there. The current situation in Drupal is that the contents of the tarball are exactly the same as the contents of CVS (except that CVS is more up-to-date). Are you saying that this will no longer be the case? Do you mean that checking out Drupal core will now have a different result to downloading a tarball of Drupal core?
My understanding was that the Drupal core CVS repository would have everything under /public_html, and that the Drupal core tarball would have the same (this is how it is now). Why would you want to change this? Doing so would only confuse people.
Agreed. If we go ahead with this, the directory structure in CVS should match the structure in the tarball. If not, we're asking for trouble, and it is a nightmare for people using CVS to maintain/update their sites.
Dries I hear what you are saying, but the idea here is to improve this for the end user and not be obstructed because of developers (who already know what they are doing and can work around it). This leaves several options: 1. Go ahead with this new scheme (drupal and local) and reorganize the CVS to match. There is some work involved at the CVS backedn level, making it match the proposed scheme. 2. Write a script to move directories after a CVS checkout. This seems cumbersome, since a cvs update will not work. 3. Adrian's install handles upgrades (need details on when it will be available and whether upgrades will be seemless) 4. Forget this whole new directory structure thing, and continue to deal with complaints about upgrades being dangerous and difficult. What do you think?