> You are probably right in your suggestions. They just seem
> like more hassle to me and do not meet my personal preferences.
> Imagine how hard it would be to produce patch releases if I had
> so many different sub-directories to worry about. Merging in
> changes from other developers? Managing my own internal version
> control? Synchronizing changes between my notebook, work
> computer and home computer?

Jason, the level of splitting described by Leonardo does not meet my
personal preferences either, and I would suggest that they are
inappropriate for a product as dynamic as IBO. However, as a v4
suggestion, what do you think of the following...

Move all the source files into a Source subdirectory. Leave
releasenotes, licence and similar documentation in the root directory.
This way a new user is presented with a simple small list of files
that they should read, without wading through a huge directory
listing.

If it does not complicate things too much, I think it would be good if
the package project files were also in the root IBO directory - but
this may take some experimentation. I certainly want to keep it so
that, to use IBO, I only have to add one directory to my search paths.


Leonardo, do you know if it is possible to create a setup program
that can be distributed inside the distribution? That is; A small
executable that can be run to perform the Delphi/BCB setup, but not
perform any copying etc. Actually, if the setup program could create
or modify the required package files according to user preference,
that would be even better.

This way a developer can just copy the distribution where they want
it, then run the setup to install the relevant package. Since the
core package files of IBO are relatively static, this would not create
any additional work for the release of patches etc. This also lets
users, like myself, totally ignore the setup program if desired.


Just some thoughts.

Geoff Worboys
Telesis Computing