On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 1:45 PM, John ZuHone <firstname.lastname@example.org
> Hi all,
> What I don't like about the downloader is the directory structure it creates. At least on my machine, if I download only the sloshing dataset, I get:
> as the location of the files. Is there any reason why it ended up this way?
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Stephen Skory wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>>> One question that's come up is: do we want to continue using
>>> download.py? The burden on uploaders is moderately higher, in that
>>> the files all have to be tarred up in a particular way, and they have
>>> to be added to download.py, but it does provide a measure of
>>> robustness. If we do this, can we move download.py into the main
>>> distribution, under scripts/ ? Stephen, John, others who have used
>>> the script, what do you think about this?
>> I will not be insulted if we do away with the download script. If a
>> web page of download links is easier for everyone around, that's fine
>> by me. The best argument I can think of for keeping it, or something
>> similar, it is forces some kind of uniformity so that the datasets are
>> in an expected layout. Also, downloading tens of data dumps one at at
>> time from a webpage is kind of tedious. That could be solved by having
>> both the separate data dumps and a big 'ol tarball of the whole thing
>> so people could get exactly what they want, but that doubles disk
>> space on someone's computer.
>> But this isn't HIPPA medical data, so we can be loosie goosie if that
>> makes things easier for everyone!
>> Stephen Skory
>> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev mailing list