From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 16:29:02 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A368316A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:29:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140E143D4C for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:29:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.21] (rat.samsco.home [192.168.254.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2TGX3d4005074; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:33:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <424981D1.40000@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:26:57 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050321 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Iasen Kostov References: <319cceca05032811484cb1a95b@mail.gmail.com> <42487982.30909@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <319cceca05032907411014a218@mail.gmail.com> <20050329.084817.41630990.imp@bsdimp.com> <42497F1B.4040804@OTEL.net> In-Reply-To: <42497F1B.4040804@OTEL.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: organization X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:29:02 -0000 Iasen Kostov wrote: > Warner Losh wrote: > >> From: mohamed aslan >> Subject: Re: organization >> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:41:25 -0800 >> >> >> >>> guys this is not a flame war >>> but the linux way in arranging the source file is really better than >>> freebsd way, it's a fact. >>> however it's easy to rearrange it in 1 min as someone said before. >>> but i mean this step should be done from the core team. >>> for example all fs has to go in a subdir called fs >>> arch specific file should go in subdir called arch/(arch name) >>> and so on . >>> >> >> >> The problem is getting consensus on what is to be done. Sure, one can >> arbitrarily say this goes here or that goes there, but everyone's >> notion of reorg is a little different. It would take a lot of time >> and energy to get this consensus, which is better spent making things >> work better... >> >> Warner >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> >> > And the worts of all is that You are both right to some extent. The > new developers want the source tree arranged in the way mohamed says it > should be. Not some device drivers live in pci/ other in dev/ and things > like that. And on the other hand experienced kernel hackers who want > things to stay as they are so it is easy for them to navigate in know > waters. IMHO mohamed is a bit "more" right. > What do you think the reaction would be if you or Mr. Aslan trotted over to the linux kernel hackers list and told them that they were all 'wrong' for piling all of the storage drivers into linux/drivers/scsi instead of separating them out into subdirectories? What do you think the reaction would be if you told Theo DeRadt that OpenBSD is 'wrong' for piling dozens of drivers into sys/dev/ic instead of separating them out more logically? At best, you'd be ignored. Telling a group that they are right or wrong based on your personal opinion of how the world should be is, um, a waste of time. Scott