Author malte
Recipients erez, florian, gabi, jendrik, malte, silvia
Date 2015-11-11.21:27:41
> Should we make this into a meta issue and create individual issues for the
> parts? For example, one for the "easy" part and one each for search, state,
> task and utility classes?

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't create all of them at the same time, but rather in
a more piecemeal fashion as we get to work on them. For example, "utility
classes" was meant as an example of how one *might* separate out part of the
code into a somewhat coherent component. It wasn't meant as a well-considered

On 1): Ideally, I would like to discuss the Heuristic-ScalarEvaluator merger in
a live discussion with everyone who has an opinion on the matter. For me, the
most difficult question at the moment is how one would name the joint class. If
we can easily come up with a plan for how to merge them, then I'd be in favour
of moving to the final directory structure straight away. If it looks more
complicated, I guess it's OK to start with two directories "evaluators" and
"heuristics" even if they turn out to be short-lived. But as we discussed
before, moving files around is somewhat disruptive w.r.t. merging etc., and
perhaps it's not wise to do it if we can already expect moving them again soon.

On 2): no objections to creating the lp directory. I just wanted to ask the
question because it's a possible objection that some of us might feel more
strongly about. (I don't.)
Date User Action Args
2015-11-11 21:27:41maltesetmessageid: <>
2015-11-11 21:27:41maltesetrecipients: + malte, erez, gabi, silvia, jendrik, florian
2015-11-11 21:27:41maltelinkissue64 messages
2015-11-11 21:27:41maltecreate