New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Split of sources and headers #3229
Comments
I vote for removing the split in opm-common. |
I too think the cost of the split is a bit high, but I also think we should keep in mind that there are, as you say, a few private headers in the Private Headers
|
They definitely should stay private if they can be private. |
Ie #!/bin/bash
PRIV_HEADERS=`find src/ -name "*.hpp"`
SOURCES=`find src/ -name "*.cpp"`
for HDR in $PRIV_HEADERS
do
DDIR=`dirname $HDR | sed -e 's/src\/opm\///g'`
DF=`echo $HDR | sed -e 's/src\/opm\///g'`
echo "mkdir -p opm/private/$DDIR"
echo "git mv $HDR opm/private/$DF"
done
for SRC in $SOURCES
do
DDIR=`dirname $SRC | sed -e 's/src\///g'`
DF=`echo $SRC | sed -e 's/src\///g'`
echo "mkdir -p $DDIR"
echo "git mv $SRC $DF"
done (ignore the echos) |
I vote for removing the split. I think private headers are annoying because often at some point we want to make it public, but putting them in a private/ or details/ dir is fine with me. Then it is clear it is not intended as public API, while also making it easy to change that. |
@atgeirr suggests git mv src/opm/x/y/z/foo.hpp -> opm/x/y/z/details/foo.hpp |
I think that's fine. The only possible exception is That said, I think I'd like to know a little bit more about the context here. Is this intended as aa preparatory step to enabling some other work, or are you contemplating the reorganisation for some other reason? |
no technical reason, only that people (in particular @atgeirr) has expressed that they would like the unification. |
opm-common is currently the only repo where we have a src/ directory for sources (and private headers).
Should we make this consistent? Either by doing this everywhere or by removing the split in opm-common?
Personally I'm of the latter opinion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: