Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:33:33 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660? Message-ID: <20060929103333.d4ydu2bb3swoks4g@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <451C8E00.500@centtech.com> References: <451ADC21.50206@centtech.com> <451AE27F.3010506@samsco.org> <200609271727.29775.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060928082651.b6xp2ayu9wg40wok@webmail.leidinger.net> <451C8E00.500@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> (from Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:07:44 -0500): > On 09/28/06 01:26, 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. When we have found a VCS which suits our needs... :-) Have a look at wiki.freebsd.org (may be incomplete ATM, we are not at a position where we can make a judgement yet, we still add a lot of stuff there) about our needs and which VCS we evaluate if they meet the needs. It may be the case that currently no VCS fits our needs and we decide to wait half a year and reevaluate then. Bye, Alexander. -- And I alone am returned to wag the tail. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060929103333.d4ydu2bb3swoks4g>