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 =20 22:07:44 -0500): > On 09/28/06 01:26, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> (from Wed, 27 Sep 2006 =20 >> 17:27:29 -0400): >> >>> We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past. O= nly >>> 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 =20 >>> 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 =20 >> 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 =20 a position where we can make a judgement yet, we still add a lot of =20 stuff there) about our needs and which VCS we evaluate if they meet =20 the needs. It may be the case that currently no VCS fits our needs and =20 we decide to wait half a year and reevaluate then. Bye, Alexander. --=20 And I alone am returned to wag the tail. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060929103333.d4ydu2bb3swoks4g>