Re: [1.8.0] reorganize the mess that the source tree has become

[Eugene Sajine <euguess@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, George Spelvin wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I don't see the "cleanup".
>>
>> If it significantly reduced the size of the largest directory,
>> that would be a win.  But moving everything into src/ doesn't
>> do that.
>>
>> If there's a way to divide the source into cohesive subunits, that
>> would be great.  A programmer could ignore whole subdirectories
>> when working on something.
>>
>> But just moving the whole existing pile into a subdirectory "because
>> everyone else does it" is not a reason; that's superstition.
>
> There is no superstition here, simply basic elegance.
>
> When you pick up a book from a shelf, do you see the actual content of
> the book printed right from the inside of the cover page, and the table
> of content tossed in the margin?  Would you construct a book yourself
> that way?
>
> A nice source tree should be organized with a minimum of hierarchical
> structure.  To a newbie wanting to contribute to Git, it is rather
> frightening to cd into the git directory and see that ls generates more
> than 280 entries.  That simply looks sloppy.  And this gets much worse
> after a make.
>
> The top directory should make different things stand out much more
> clearly, like a preface and a table of content.  You have the
> documentation here, the source there, the tests there, a clearly visible
> README file, etc.  If the src directory has about the same relative
> number of files after a move that's fine.  At least you should expect
> _only_ source files in there (and possibly their by-products), and not
> other types of data buried into the mix.
>
>> Having to type "src/" a lot more often is definitely a downside.
>
> Come on.  This is a rather egocentric argument without much substance.
>
>> Heck, that's one thing I actively dislike about GNU autoconf conventions.
>
> This has _nothing_ about any autoconf convention.  GNU autoconf requires
> stupid things like having a bunch of files such as CREDITS, INSTALL,
> CHANGELOG, and other whatnots even if you have nothing to put in them,
> in which case they still have to be there but empty.  It also dictates
> the exact name your directories must have, etc.
>
> I'm not proposing a tree reorganization because GNU autoconf commands
> it, but rather because this is a sensible thing to do.
>
>> If there's a compelling reason to change, could someone please describe it?
>
> It's about the third time I'm putting forward arguments for this.
> Please see the list archive.
>
> P.S. the netiquette on busy mailing lists recommends that you preserve
> all the email addresses that were listed as recipients on the message
> you reply to.  That would be highly appreciated.
>
>
> Nicolas
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

I'm not a hacker, but a user who had sometimes peeked into the git
sources. Unbelievable mess... Impossible to see the structure in
command line interface.
I totally agree with Nicolas here.
Folders were invented for a reason.

IMHO
src for source code
build for build by-products
tests for tests

Come on, give us some love, please!;)

Thanks,
Eugene