Converting modules into packages?

[eliotmcintire]

After many discussions about namespacing, the likely avenue is to make modules into packages. We may keep the current module mechanism in parallel, or deprecate it. This continues #293.

First version implemented successfully. 957bff0
In branch modulesAsPackages.

Several issues were identified in a phone call, identified.

Benefits:

1. Namespacing is dealt with
2. Package dependency mechanism is dealt with, but it has to be changed from our current one.

[SteveCumming]

I think this is overkill and will dramatically impede the uptake of the tool. It is at the very least premature.

[eliotmcintire]

@SteveCumming As indicated above, this would most likely be done as an additional option for module developers (unless it becomes really good). For module developers of models that are extremely mature, such as CBM-CFS3, it is likely essential to have the additional robustness of the package development environment.

[eliotmcintire]

I am happy to say that this is likey "premature", plus we have implemented a namespacing with packages now c21005e

[achubaty]

is the modulesAsPackage branch going to stick around, or will it be deleted?

[eliotmcintire]

I am ambivalent. Delete if desired.

…

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Alex Chubaty ***@***.***> wrote: is the modulesAsPackage branch going to stick around, or will it be deleted? — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#294 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDK22-m6zd1xtSudEYtsaX3gCW9Rpemks5sGEd0gaJpZM4JgkDr> .

[achubaty]

ok, deleting