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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?451CA64D.3050703>