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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061001.140219.228971290.imp>