[Meta] Slim down project

[timhabermaas]

As mentioned on speedsolving TNoodle would in my opinion benefit from a slimmer overall appearance.

Here's a rough roadmap how I'd approach this. Feel free to add missing points/correct existing ones and raise any objections in the comments below.

TODO

• Remove all projects which are not required for building TNoodle.
  • Either nuke them from earth or move them to separate repositories.
• Remove unused features from tmt.
  • __pullRequest?
• Replace most of tmt with a dedicated Java build system.
  • gradle looks like a promising alternative compared to the obnoxious ant and maven.
  • automake?
• Decide on the definition of TNoodle.
  • Is it just the scrambler or a bunch of cubing-related projects (as mentioned in the readme)?

I can (obviously) help with removing stuff, but I have absolutely no experience with the Java build ecosystem. I never used any of the alternatives posted above.

[jfly]

One idea: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?45693-WCA-Regulations-2014-Scramble-Filtering-(new-poll)&p=942395&viewfull=1#post942395. The idea of starting fresh with a brand new "wca scrambler" repository is really growing on me. It would be a shame to lose the revision history, but maybe we could pull that in somehow. Git is magical, right? If we did this, tnoodle would just become a wrapper for the official wca scrambler java library. This might even make it possible for us to fix ui/pdf generation stuff without changing the regulations (not sure how the WRC would feel about this, would love for @lgarron to chime in here).

[lgarron]

A simple solution: Just create a new repo with the same history. Unless the history is unreasonably huge, no one cares about anything but the current branches working.

I'm not sure what point you're making about changing the Reguations. As long as TNoodle doesn't change the scrambling method, it can have releases at any time.

[jfly]

Well, right now, there's a difference between us releasing a new version of TNoodle, and people being allowed to use that version of TNoodle. If the scrambling code wasn't part of TNoodle, then I believe we could change that. Even if you don't like the thought of that, I still think this idea has merit from a better organization perspective.

[lgarron]

I think we should not change that. As far as Delegates are concerned,
there should be a canonical current download. I prefer a single piece of
software whose release is vetted explicitly. There is no shame in updating
more often, if that's what we really want.

We could abandon the current model altogether, e.g. put everything on the
WCA server. I But the current mechanism works well at producing scrambles
that are unavailable to anyone but the Delegate.

»Lucas Garron

On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Jeremy Fleischman <notifications@github.com

wrote:

Well, right now, there's a difference between us releasing a new version
of TNoodle, and people being allowed to use that version of TNoodle. If the
scrambling code wasn't part of TNoodle, then I believe we could change
that. Even if you don't like the thought of that, I still think this idea
has merit from a better organization perspective.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/160#issuecomment-32134823
.

[timhabermaas]

A simple solution: Just create a new repo with the same history. Unless the history is unreasonably huge, no one cares about anything but the current branches working.

And then remove everything not needed with the next commit, right?