So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as we
speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we don't
currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there isn't a
clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be packaged in
pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a home for
them.

The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to src/main/java/,
but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to accomodate
one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't seem
worth killing old patches.

We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?

Thoughts?
Jon

+1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as we
> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we don't
> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there isn't a
> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be packaged in
> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a home for
> them.
>
> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to src/main/java/,
> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to accomodate
> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't seem
> worth killing old patches.
>
> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>
> Thoughts?
> Jon
>

--
*Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] going forward.*

Sounds good to me.
My thoughts on the costs of this change -
- svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not a
problem.
- build.xml would need some minor changes
- some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated
against old directory structure.

Thanks,
Thejas
On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as we
>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we don't
>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there isn't a
>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be packaged in
>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a home for
>> them.
>>
>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to src/main/java/,
>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to accomodate
>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't seem
>> worth killing old patches.
>>
>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Jon
>>
>
>
>

All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
that.

D

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not a
> problem.
> - build.xml would need some minor changes
> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated against
> old directory structure.
>
> Thanks,
> Thejas
>
>
>
> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as we
>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
>>> don't
>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there isn't
>>> a
>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be packaged in
>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a home
>>> for
>>> them.
>>>
>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
>>> src/main/java/,
>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to accomodate
>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
>>> seem
>>> worth killing old patches.
>>>
>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Jon
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

This is surely a desired directory structure, but I don't want to
spend too much time on that provides 0.10 release is approaching.
Currently the only impacted file is pigudf.rb. If someone can make the
change and do proper tests in several days, we can certainly change,
otherwise, we can just drop it to src/jruby.

Daniel

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
> Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
> well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
> that.
>
> D
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sounds good to me.
>> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
>> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not a
>> problem.
>> - build.xml would need some minor changes
>> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated against
>> old directory structure.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thejas
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
>>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as we
>>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
>>>> don't
>>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there isn't
>>>> a
>>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be packaged in
>>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a home
>>>> for
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
>>>> src/main/java/,
>>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to accomodate
>>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
>>>> seem
>>>> worth killing old patches.
>>>>
>>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

I vote we avoid the re-organization until there's a tangible benefit.  I don't think there's any cost (beyond annoyance maybe) to putting ruby stuff in src-ruby.  There isn't any benefit to moving to src/main/java/maven/demands/super/long/paths until we move to maven, if we ever do.

Alan.

On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Dai wrote:

> This is surely a desired directory structure, but I don't want to
> spend too much time on that provides 0.10 release is approaching.
> Currently the only impacted file is pigudf.rb. If someone can make the
> change and do proper tests in several days, we can certainly change,
> otherwise, we can just drop it to src/jruby.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
>> Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
>> well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
>> that.
>>
>> D
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Sounds good to me.
>>> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
>>> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not a
>>> problem.
>>> - build.xml would need some minor changes
>>> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated against
>>> old directory structure.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thejas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
>>>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as we
>>>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
>>>>> don't
>>>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there isn't
>>>>> a
>>>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be packaged in
>>>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a home
>>>>> for
>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
>>>>> src/main/java/,
>>>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to accomodate
>>>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
>>>>> seem
>>>>> worth killing old patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

Sounds good. I'll just make that change as part of the jruby patch and
close the other one once it is in.

2012/3/16 Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I vote we avoid the re-organization until there's a tangible benefit.  I
> don't think there's any cost (beyond annoyance maybe) to putting ruby stuff
> in src-ruby.  There isn't any benefit to moving to
> src/main/java/maven/demands/super/long/paths until we move to maven, if we
> ever do.
>
> Alan.
>
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Dai wrote:
>
> > This is surely a desired directory structure, but I don't want to
> > spend too much time on that provides 0.10 release is approaching.
> > Currently the only impacted file is pigudf.rb. If someone can make the
> > change and do proper tests in several days, we can certainly change,
> > otherwise, we can just drop it to src/jruby.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
> >> Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
> >> well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
> >> that.
> >>
> >> D
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Sounds good to me.
> >>> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
> >>> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not
> a
> >>> problem.
> >>> - build.xml would need some minor changes
> >>> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated
> against
> >>> old directory structure.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Thejas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
> >>>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as
> we
> >>>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there
> isn't
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be
> packaged in
> >>>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a
> home
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
> >>>>> src/main/java/,
> >>>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to
> accomodate
> >>>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
> >>>>> seem
> >>>>> worth killing old patches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>> Jon
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>

Agreed, a and retracting my +1 on dir renaming. Braking all future patch
applications would be really bad.
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I vote we avoid the re-organization until there's a tangible benefit.  I
> don't think there's any cost (beyond annoyance maybe) to putting ruby stuff
> in src-ruby.  There isn't any benefit to moving to
> src/main/java/maven/demands/super/long/paths until we move to maven, if we
> ever do.
>
> Alan.
>
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Dai wrote:
>
> > This is surely a desired directory structure, but I don't want to
> > spend too much time on that provides 0.10 release is approaching.
> > Currently the only impacted file is pigudf.rb. If someone can make the
> > change and do proper tests in several days, we can certainly change,
> > otherwise, we can just drop it to src/jruby.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
> >> Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
> >> well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
> >> that.
> >>
> >> D
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> Sounds good to me.
> >>> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
> >>> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not
> a
> >>> problem.
> >>> - build.xml would need some minor changes
> >>> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated
> against
> >>> old directory structure.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Thejas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
> >>>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as
> we
> >>>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
> >>>>> don't
> >>>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there
> isn't
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be
> packaged in
> >>>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a
> home
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
> >>>>> src/main/java/,
> >>>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to
> accomodate
> >>>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
> >>>>> seem
> >>>>> worth killing old patches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>> Jon
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>
--
*Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email me at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] going forward.*

You can put jruby into a maven-friendly location, though.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds good. I'll just make that change as part of the jruby patch and
> close the other one once it is in.
>
> 2012/3/16 Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I vote we avoid the re-organization until there's a tangible benefit.  I
>> don't think there's any cost (beyond annoyance maybe) to putting ruby stuff
>> in src-ruby.  There isn't any benefit to moving to
>> src/main/java/maven/demands/super/long/paths until we move to maven, if we
>> ever do.
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Dai wrote:
>>
>> > This is surely a desired directory structure, but I don't want to
>> > spend too much time on that provides 0.10 release is approaching.
>> > Currently the only impacted file is pigudf.rb. If someone can make the
>> > change and do proper tests in several days, we can certainly change,
>> > otherwise, we can just drop it to src/jruby.
>> >
>> > Daniel
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
>> >> Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
>> >> well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
>> >> that.
>> >>
>> >> D
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Sounds good to me.
>> >>> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
>> >>> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not
>> a
>> >>> problem.
>> >>> - build.xml would need some minor changes
>> >>> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated
>> against
>> >>> old directory structure.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Thejas
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
>> >>>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as
>> we
>> >>>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
>> >>>>> don't
>> >>>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there
>> isn't
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be
>> packaged in
>> >>>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a
>> home
>> >>>>> for
>> >>>>> them.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
>> >>>>> src/main/java/,
>> >>>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to
>> accomodate
>> >>>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
>> >>>>> seem
>> >>>>> worth killing old patches.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>> Jon
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>>
>>

On Mar 16, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Dmitriy Ryaboy wrote:

> You can put jruby into a maven-friendly location, though.

+1.

Alan.

>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jonathan Coveney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sounds good. I'll just make that change as part of the jruby patch and
>> close the other one once it is in.
>>
>> 2012/3/16 Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> I vote we avoid the re-organization until there's a tangible benefit.  I
>>> don't think there's any cost (beyond annoyance maybe) to putting ruby stuff
>>> in src-ruby.  There isn't any benefit to moving to
>>> src/main/java/maven/demands/super/long/paths until we move to maven, if we
>>> ever do.
>>>
>>> Alan.
>>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Daniel Dai wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is surely a desired directory structure, but I don't want to
>>>> spend too much time on that provides 0.10 release is approaching.
>>>> Currently the only impacted file is pigudf.rb. If someone can make the
>>>> change and do proper tests in several days, we can certainly change,
>>>> otherwise, we can just drop it to src/jruby.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Ryaboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> All patches will need to be regenerated.. yikes. But maybe worth it.
>>>>> Is that the structure maven expects? If we move stuff around, might as
>>>>> well make sure we won't need to redo it for maven if we ever get to
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> D
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Thejas Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Sounds good to me.
>>>>>> My thoughts on the costs of this change -
>>>>>> - svn will still retain the history of the moved files. So that is not
>>> a
>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>> - build.xml would need some minor changes
>>>>>> - some extra steps will be required to apply the patches generated
>>> against
>>>>>> old directory structure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Thejas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/15/12 5:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 for src/main/ruby and src/main/java.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan
>>>>>>> Coveney<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So with the jruby addition (which I'm putting a cherry on top of as
>>> we
>>>>>>>> speak!), there's going to be some source files in ruby. Given that we
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> currently have (afaik) any code in languages other than java, there
>>> isn't
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> clear place to put this. The files are such that they can be
>>> packaged in
>>>>>>>> pig.jar and referenced via that (hooray for jruby), but we need a
>>> home
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ideal would be src/main/ruby/, and move all the java to
>>>>>>>> src/main/java/,
>>>>>>>> but this seems like a pretty traumatic change at this point to
>>> accomodate
>>>>>>>> one file...even if we add some python and more ruby files, it doesn't
>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>> worth killing old patches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We could also do src-ruby in the base dir and just go from there?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>> Jon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>