From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [1.8.0] reorganize the mess that the source tree has become Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:48:07 -0500 Message-ID: <20110201014807.GA2722@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7vzkqh8vqw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vwrll57ha.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110131210045.GB14419@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110131231210.GD14419@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 01 02:48:17 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pk5Ls-0003ML-Ax for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 02:48:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754372Ab1BABsL (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:48:11 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:37826 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754062Ab1BABsK (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:48:10 -0500 Received: (qmail 15719 invoked by uid 111); 1 Feb 2011 01:48:09 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:48:09 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:48:07 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:29:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Yes, we do suck at rename following. The problem is that it is partially > [...] > This is no excuse not to do proper source tree reorganization. I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't agree that your proposal is any way more "proper" than what is there now. Leaving the rename issue aside (i.e., if we were starting a new project), I would still be slightly against a src/ directory. I find them annoying. But I don't care _that_ much, and I would rather not waste either of our time debating it more. I would much rather you spend your time on pack v4. :) > I disagree. This is like saying: "renames are not well supported, so > let's avoid them while using Git." People used to say that of merges > with CVS. Are we going to follow suit de facto? Imagine the Git > detractors taking our source tree mess to exemplify this Git flaw since > "Git developers themselves are unwilling to move files around because > Git sucks at it". For the record, part of my argument was that renaming is annoying to some degree in _all_ systems, not just git. > > I do think it's wrong to say "renames can't be > > done"; I just the cost needs to be considered. > > Instead, why not saying: "Rename tracking is not as optimal as it could > be, so let's work it out." ? I did also say that. :) -Peff