From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 9 16:16:58 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 BC693106568F; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:16:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it) Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739248FC26; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275) id E311F730A1; Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:24:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:24:58 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20100109162458.GA8270@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <20100107203536.GB8230@rincewind.paeps.cx> <20100107214334.GA35184@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <201001080812.21124.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100108.175640.1104512900458971844.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100108.175640.1104512900458971844.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, tuexen@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org 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 16:16:58 -0000 On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 05:56:40PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > 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. given the overwhelming response, i give up :) > Warner