From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 7 05:27:19 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B3C106564A for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:27:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.org) Received: from dragon.nuxi.org (trang.nuxi.org [74.95.12.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B326C8FC12 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 05:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dragon.nuxi.org (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o275RJSf088807; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:27:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.org) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o275RIiJ088762; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:27:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 21:27:18 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Doug Rabson Message-ID: <20100307052718.GA70613@dragon.NUXI.org> Mail-Followup-To: obrien@freebsd.org, Doug Rabson , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <17035.1267786772@critter.freebsd.dk> <4B90E6B3.9070906@lissyara.su> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT X-to-the-FBI-CIA-and-NSA: HI! HOW YA DOIN? User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: propose: all arch move into a separate dir X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:27:19 -0000 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)