Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:52:49 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: das@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: organization Message-ID: <20050329.095249.71088143.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <319cceca05032907411014a218@mail.gmail.com> <20050329.084817.41630990.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU>
David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
: On Tue, Mar 29, 2005, Warner Losh wrote:
: > From: mohamed aslan <maslanbsd@gmail.com>
: > 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.
You've proven my point exactly: Some folks want to see i386 moved to
arch/i386, others think it is stupid to do that. Discussion isn't
possible here, so nothing will happen since there's no compelling
reason to do anything, just a weak argument about how things might be
nicer.
The fact that we even consider cvsup load when discussing this means
that clearly it is a weak idea: if we have to worry about the impact
on how we distribute the sources for a change, isn't that really a
weird criteria to use?
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050329.095249.71088143.imp>