From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 17 22:54:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4083A1065756; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:54:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D14268FC0A; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:54:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n0HMqMJY021442; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:52:22 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:52:53 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20090117.155253.63023175.imp@bsdimp.com> To: stas@FreeBSD.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20090117185801.fcce79e9.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090117142021.92d5a40b.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20090117185801.fcce79e9.stas@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, ed@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r187332 - head/tools/regression/usr.bin/jot X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:54:06 -0000 In message: <20090117185801.fcce79e9.stas@FreeBSD.org> Stanislav Sedov writes: : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- : Hash: SHA1 : : On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:00:55 +0000 (GMT) : Robert Watson mentioned: : : > : > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Stanislav Sedov wrote: : > : > > Was this discussed somewhere? I don't understand why we should restrict our : > > filesystem naming because of limitation of auxilary filesystems. There're : > > even more restrictive filesystems available, we couldn't support them all. : > > While previous modifications looked harmless this one seems questionable to : > > me. : > > : > > I understand, this is a bikesched, but I really don't see a reason. You : > > can't build FreeBSD on windows anyway. : > : > Many of us would *very* much like to be able to cross-build FreeBSD from both : > Windows and Mac OS X, which would be highly desirable for embedded systems and : > appliance shops. The first obstacle to making that work is that you can't : > even check out our source code correctly on those platforms, so fixing that is : > an important priority so that the remainder can be worked on. : > : : I think this should be rather worked out in these platforms themselves (e.g. : by renaming files in the checkout files, and so on) withouth trashing our : tree. While some changes could be understandable, the one I've replied : completely broked heirarchy of jot regressions tests: before the names : of files were coreesponding to the options used in the test, now you can't : say exactly what options used by looking at the filename. This looks like : a gratitous change and regression to me. It isn't worth fussing about. It is a trivial change and a heck of a lot easier to deal with than trying to arrange for the files to wind up in the right places after the fact. While one might fuss over the names here, there's nothing to prevent you from changing it to a more proper name if you don't like the new name... Warner