From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wkt@tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 11:09:40 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] Reorganising the Unix Archive? In-Reply-To: References: <20170218001244.GB17910@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20170218010940.GA24036@minnie.tuhs.org> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:40:16PM -0500, Clem Cole wrote: > Sounds good, although I might offer one slight twist. I think > organizations should be the higher bit not systems, doc etc.... I'll disagree, mainly because of what we have currently in terms of applications and documentation. At present, in these categories we have: - Circuit_Design Festoon Portable_CC Shoppa_Tapes Usenix_77 Early_C_Compilers Macro-11 README Software_Tools Algol68 Em_Editor OpenLook Ritter_Vi Spencer_Tapes - AUUGN Books Emails OralHistory PUPS Papers TUHS Unix_Review - various system setup docs Except for the last category, all the existing applications and documentation are not easily classifiable into . So I think it would be better to have a generic top-level Applications and Documentation directories. We can move the system setup docs into specific system areas. I don't mind having top-level directories, but I fear that in the long term there will be lots of them. So it's a question: do we clutter up the top level with a heap of directories, or do we have a heap of Systems/ directories. I'd prefer the latter. > I also feel that Year of Distribution probably needs to be in the > name if possible (certainly in metadata or at least an explanatory > README). For things like the USENIX tapes that's easier - because they > were done by year. My preference is to keep date details in metadata and not in directory names. There will be some things which are hard to date or whose date is in dispute, and there may be things which are aggregates of work done over several years. But I'll admit that there is not enough metadata and little consistency in the metadata (e.g. Readme files) that are currently in the Archive. Cheers & thanks for the feedback, Warren