On Tue, Mar 29, 2005, Warner Losh wrote: > From: mohamed aslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
