Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:02:19 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Alexander@Leidinger.net Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? Message-ID: <20061001.140219.228971290.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net>
Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> writes:
: Quoting John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> (from Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:27:29 -0400):
:
: > We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. Only
: > cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs and ufs
: > alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra isofs
: > directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point.
:
: I expect a lot of moves when we switch to a VCS where moves are
: cheap... but on the other hand, maybe this is another bikeshed.
Actually, I expect there to NOT be a lot of moves if/when we change
VCS. Just because a tool makes it easy, doesn't mean that it also
solves the problem of reaching consensus on how to make the moves.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061001.140219.228971290.imp>