moving sctp to a separate directory ?
rizzo at iet.unipi.it
Sat Jan 9 16:16:58 UTC 2010
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 05:56:40PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <201001080812.21124.jhb at freebsd.org>
> John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> writes:
> : On Thursday 07 January 2010 4:43:34 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> : > > What do you do with udp, for instance? Compared to tcp and sctp, it's
> : > > trivial in terms of code, but it's an upper layer protocol from the
> : > > perspective of netinet/netinet6 - do we put it in its own directory too?
> : > > Also note that this won't only cause churn for people who have patches against
> : > > or (out-of-tree) branches from netinet/, but also in other kernel subsystems
> : > > which rely on tcp -- nfs, for instance.
> : >
> : > + i find the concern about churn in external patchsets a bit weak, first of
> : > all because this is bound to happen unless we stop all development,
> : > and secondly because this kind of file moving or splitting happens
> : > once every 10-15 years which is well beyond the lifetime of a patchset.
> : Having the files rename is entirely different from merging changes. At least
> : for svn and p4 I believe that merging a rename into a branch is not smart
> : enough to merge your local changes into the new files. Instead it involves a
> : big manual fixup.
> : Also, the 10-15 years thing is completely non-relevant. What is relevant is
> : if you are working on a project in a branch and someone renames files before
> : you have finished your branch and merged it up to HEAD. For example, assume
> : that someone else renamed the ipfw files in HEAD next week. That would
> : create an utter mess for you to resolve in your current ipfw3 branch. Moving
> : TCP would create similar a headache, except much more widespread since TCP is
> : one of the most widely worked-on subsystems.
> : FWIW, I do think it would be cleaner to have netinet more split up perhaps,
> : but I do not think it is worth the pain that would be involved.
> It is painful enough moving drivers around. I think that while well
> intentioned, it will cause us nothing but grief.
given the overwhelming response, i give up :)
More information about the svn-src-all