On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:16:41AM +0000, Doug Rabson wrote: > I think you misunderstand. Some of us old-timers have been having this > discussion repeatedly for well over ten years. It always ends up the same > way - a re-org might make the source tree marginally prettier but the > consequences for long-term maintenance and supporting downstream > contributors outweigh any possible benefit. Having the same conversation > every two years with the same outcome gets annoying.
To be fair - two years ago we were not using a source control system that understood moves within the repository. To do this two years ago, we had to make a choice between three poor paths of how to do CVS moves - repo copy (breaks date-based checkout), delete-add pairs (looses history), or copy the entire repository move files and use new repo for new releases and existing repo for old releases. Juniper now also uses Subversion - so with sufficient warning and planning, Juniper could consume a move of the CPU directories moving under arch/. Juniper also had a CVS based tree reorg 1.5 years go - taking the third path above. Please don't use Juniper as an reason to not move forward with this change. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
