On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:11:50 -0500: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name > >wrote: > > > > > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:49:04 -0500: > > > > Instead, I propose subdirectories named ev2 in the various libsvn_foo > > > > directories which would hold Ev2 implementations. They would > eventually > > > go > > > > > > Not objected to subdirs, but have you considered just naming your files > > > libsvn_repos/ev2_replay.c and so on? That doesn't need any build.conf > > > changes... > > > > > > > I thought about that, but didn't want to double the number of files in > > something like libsvn_client where there are several editor > implementations. > > > > I know we already have subdirectories in at least a couple of places > > (mod_dav_svn comes to mind). Are the build.conf changes that invasive? > > No, they aren't invasive; they're just one more moving part --- and I've > spent the last couple of days reducing the number of moving parts (in > various other contexts), so I quite appreciate the difference between > "0. Profit!" and "0. Foo 1. Profit!". I completely understand (and agree!), but I think in this case it'd be worth it to make the segregation more pronounced by using the directory hierarchy as a namespace mechanism, rather than prepending something to the filename. -Hyrum
