From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 16:55:41 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 B94BC16A4CE; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:55:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A83B43D46; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:55:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2TGrjlq003278; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:53:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:52:49 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20050329.095249.71088143.imp@bsdimp.com> To: das@FreeBSD.ORG From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <319cceca05032907411014a218@mail.gmail.com> <20050329.084817.41630990.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 16:55:41 -0000 In message: <20050329163556.GA14181@VARK.MIT.EDU> David Schultz writes: : 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. 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