moving sctp to a separate directory ?

[M. Warner Losh]

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.

Warner