organization

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20050329163556.GA14181 at VARK.MIT.EDU>
            David Schultz <das at FreeBSD.ORG> writes:
: On Tue, Mar 29, 2005, Warner Losh wrote:
: > From: mohamed aslan <maslanbsd at gmail.com>
: > Subject: Re: organization
: > Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:41:25 -0800
: > 
: > > guys this is not a flame war
: > > but the linux way in arranging the source file is really better than
: > > freebsd way, it's a fact.
: > > however it's easy to rearrange it in 1 min as someone said before.
: > > but i mean this step should be done from the core team.
: > > for example all fs has to go in a subdir called fs
: > > arch specific file should go in subdir called arch/(arch name)
: > > and so on .
: > 
: > The problem is getting consensus on what is to be done.  Sure, one can
: > arbitrarily say this goes here or that goes there, but everyone's
: > notion of reorg is a little different.  It would take a lot of time
: > and energy to get this consensus, which is better spent making things
: > work better...
: 
: I think few people would disagree with certain changes, like
: putting MD bits in subdirectories called 'arch' as in NetBSD.  The
: real question is whether people care enough to justify the repo
: bloat and the extra load on the cvsup mirrors.

You've proven my point exactly:  Some folks want to see i386 moved to
arch/i386, others think it is stupid to do that.  Discussion isn't
possible here, so nothing will happen since there's no compelling
reason to do anything, just a weak argument about how things might be
nicer.

The fact that we even consider cvsup load when discussing this means
that clearly it is a weak idea: if we have to worry about the impact
on how we distribute the sources for a change, isn't that really a
weird criteria to use?

Warner