organization

[Chris Pressey]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:17:53 -0500
David Schultz <das at FreeBSD.ORG> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Indeed, both the pro and con arguments are weak, which is probably
> why nothing has happened.  I for one would love to see libm called
> libm and not msun, for instance, but when it comes down to it, I
> have better things to do.

Equivalent (or nearly equivalent) gains could probably be made by simply
documenting the current layout better.  Also, that's the sort of project
that someone like Mohamed could undertake with minimal contention from
the rest of the project.

-Chris