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

[Robert Watson]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, John Baldwin wrote:

> 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.

Right, I'm very much in the same camp here.  I also think our directory layout 
could stand to be improved and that it would make things easier to find.  For 
less-modified (and especially, more recent) things like SCTP, I don't see harm 
in moving them now.  But a lot of people have extensive local diffs against 
TCP, UDP, and their shared infrastructure.  I know I do, and that many of our 
firewall/router/appliance/etc shops do as well.

Also, having worked with a couple of trees that moved TCP around, I have to 
say that it's quite annoying to have the TCP headers and implementation in 
different spots.  Every one grep turns into two, etc. :-)

Finally, "Moving directories with svn is so easy that we should not worry even 
if we need a couple of attempts to find a good name" sends shivers down my 
spine.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge