From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 16:36:05 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 C5BA516A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:36:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637C043D4C for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:36:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2TGZuMG014249; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:35:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j2TGZul8014248; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:35:56 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:35:56 -0500 From: David Schultz To: Warner Losh Message-ID: <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Warner Losh , maslanbsd@gmail.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <319cceca05032811484cb1a95b@mail.gmail.com> <42487982.30909@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <319cceca05032907411014a218@mail.gmail.com> <20050329.084817.41630990.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050329.084817.41630990.imp@bsdimp.com> cc: maslanbsd@gmail.com 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 16:36:05 -0000 On Tue, Mar 29, 2005, 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... I think few people would disagree with certain changes, like putting MD bits in subdirectories called 'arch' as in NetBSD. The real question is whether people care enough to justify the repo bloat and the extra load on the cvsup mirrors.