moving sctp to a separate directory ? (Re: svn commit: r201523 - head/sys/netinet)

[John Baldwin]

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.

-- 
John Baldwin