Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:51:25 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? Message-ID: <451CA64D.3050703@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <451ADC21.50206@centtech.com> <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> (from Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:27:29 > -0400): > >> We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. >> Only >> cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level. I'd still say leave nfs >> and ufs >> alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the >> extra isofs >> directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point. > > > I expect a lot of moves when we switch to a VCS where moves are > cheap... but on the other hand, maybe this is another bikeshed. > > Bye, > Alexander. > Moves in CVS are relatively easy too, it's just that they can only be performed by a special group of people, and that special group rarely responds to requests. So, it's a policy problem, not a technology problem. I would imagine than any new VCS that the project adopts would have similar policies in place, and moves will still be impossible. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?451CA64D.3050703>