From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 29 17:46:58 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 102CA16A4CE for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:46:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from marlena.vvi.at (marlena.vvi.at [208.252.225.59]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD00B43D41 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:46:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from www@marlena.vvi.at) Received: from marlena.vvi.at (localhost.marlena.vvi.at [127.0.0.1]) by marlena.vvi.at (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j2THk0bG022958; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:46:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from www@marlena.vvi.at) Received: (from www@localhost) by marlena.vvi.at (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j2THjs3S022957; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:45:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from www) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:45:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503291745.j2THjs3S022957@marlena.vvi.at> To: imp@bsdimp.com From: "ALeine" 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 17:46:58 -0000 imp@bsdimp.com wrote: > 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. If such a layout change were to happen I think the least time wasting procedure would go something like this: - issue a request for new layout propositions - for a week accept proposition submissions (web based) - have the FreeBSD community vote on the proposed layouts (web based) - assign a deadline by which a decision has to be made and then discuss the most popular layouts and try to get the Core Team and the committers to reach a consensus No consensus, no change. In any case, a lot of time and energy would be spent discussing this change, it's more of a bike shed issue than some might think, it's just not worth even starting this process in the near future. > 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? It does not prove that the idea itself is weak, it's a criterion that proves that CVS is not well suited to such changes. The thing is that even if such a change would be trivial to implement with no additional overhead, the process of deciding which new layout to adopt would take too much time and energy compared to the benefits gained by adopting a new layout, at least at this stage of development. ALeine ___________________________________________________________________ WebMail FREE http://mail.austrosearch.net