From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 9 01:05:49 2010 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 85A291065672; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 01:05:49 +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 140778FC0A; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 01:05:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o090tpZM009120; Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:55:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:56:40 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20100108.175640.1104512900458971844.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <201001080812.21124.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20100107203536.GB8230@rincewind.paeps.cx> <20100107214334.GA35184@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <201001080812.21124.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / 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, tuexen@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, rizzo@iet.unipi.it Subject: Re: moving sctp to a separate directory ? 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, 09 Jan 2010 01:05:49 -0000 In message: <201001080812.21124.jhb@freebsd.org> John Baldwin writes: : On Thursday 07 January 2010 4:43:34 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote: : > > What do you do with udp, for instance? Compared to tcp and sctp, it's : > > trivial in terms of code, but it's an upper layer protocol from the : > > perspective of netinet/netinet6 - do we put it in its own directory too? : > > Also note that this won't only cause churn for people who have patches against : > > or (out-of-tree) branches from netinet/, but also in other kernel subsystems : > > which rely on tcp -- nfs, for instance. : > : > + i find the concern about churn in external patchsets a bit weak, first of : > all because this is bound to happen unless we stop all development, : > and secondly because this kind of file moving or splitting happens : > once every 10-15 years which is well beyond the lifetime of a patchset. : : Having the files rename is entirely different from merging changes. At least : for svn and p4 I believe that merging a rename into a branch is not smart : enough to merge your local changes into the new files. Instead it involves a : big manual fixup. : : Also, the 10-15 years thing is completely non-relevant. What is relevant is : if you are working on a project in a branch and someone renames files before : you have finished your branch and merged it up to HEAD. For example, assume : that someone else renamed the ipfw files in HEAD next week. That would : create an utter mess for you to resolve in your current ipfw3 branch. Moving : TCP would create similar a headache, except much more widespread since TCP is : one of the most widely worked-on subsystems. : : FWIW, I do think it would be cleaner to have netinet more split up perhaps, : but I do not think it is worth the pain that would be involved. It is painful enough moving drivers around. I think that while well intentioned, it will cause us nothing but grief. Warner