Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:27:18 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@rabson.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: propose: all arch move into a separate dir Message-ID: <20100307052718.GA70613@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <e3e25b34d9476c02d80919fe5d09a5c3@mail.rabson.org> References: <17035.1267786772@critter.freebsd.dk> <4B90E6B3.9070906@lissyara.su> <e3e25b34d9476c02d80919fe5d09a5c3@mail.rabson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:16:41AM +0000, Doug Rabson wrote: > I think you misunderstand. Some of us old-timers have been having this > discussion repeatedly for well over ten years. It always ends up the same > way - a re-org might make the source tree marginally prettier but the > consequences for long-term maintenance and supporting downstream > contributors outweigh any possible benefit. Having the same conversation > every two years with the same outcome gets annoying. To be fair - two years ago we were not using a source control system that understood moves within the repository. To do this two years ago, we had to make a choice between three poor paths of how to do CVS moves - repo copy (breaks date-based checkout), delete-add pairs (looses history), or copy the entire repository move files and use new repo for new releases and existing repo for old releases. Juniper now also uses Subversion - so with sufficient warning and planning, Juniper could consume a move of the CPU directories moving under arch/. Juniper also had a CVS based tree reorg 1.5 years go - taking the third path above. Please don't use Juniper as an reason to not move forward with this change. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100307052718.GA70613>