From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] Thinning the git toplevel directory Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:04:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <7vmxm4onwk.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <1297304069-14764-1-git-send-email-pclouds@gmail.com> <20110218022701.GA23435@elie> <20110218092518.GB30648@elie> <7vei75p3zr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110219111103.GA1841@elie> <20110222155637.GC27178@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7v4o7vdfz2.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110223045143.GA11846@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vlj16aeih.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <1298502543.28664.19.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu> <1298567455.19041.39.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy , git@vger.kernel.org, Sverre Rabbelier To: Drew Northup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 24 19:04:32 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 1PsfYE-0003Ui-OT for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:04:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754177Ab1BXSEW (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:04:22 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:48292 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751217Ab1BXSEW (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:04:22 -0500 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by vl-mh-mrz21.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0LH400C4SVIKFWF0@vl-mh-mrz21.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:03:56 -0500 (EST) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <1298567455.19041.39.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Drew Northup wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 19:14 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Drew Northup wrote: > > > > > Besides, if we move anything around into a deeper directory structure we > > > are inevitably going to have to deal with more recursive make problems. > > > We can't just commit to master a tree that has everything moved about > > > and get around to dealing with the Makefiles later. > > > > The initial set of patches simply moved files into subdirectories and > > made the corresponding renames within the Makefile. > > > > Reorganizing the Makefile into a better Makefile or sub-makefiles can be > > done subsequently. That's my point. > > It can be done as a separate patch, but it should all be done in the > public branch (pu?) as atomically as possible (one merge from Junio's > workspace). In other words, the public branch should never fail to build > because of this work. Who said this would fail to compile? If you move bar.c into the foo directory, then in the existing Makefile you simply have to make a mechanical rename of bar.c to foo/bar.c. Restructuring the Makefile can be done separately from the file move without ever breaking the build (except for unintentional mistakes of course). > As for making an authoritative publicly available branch containing this > reorganization work (due solely to the extreme effect it will have on > other development), I will leave it an open question as to whether this > belongs in pu while a 1.7.5 release is still a possibility. It looks > like a headache either way. Oh sure. But if we the developers of Git can't deal with that ourselves then it is a really good sign that our own tool is crappy in that area and probably needs to be improved. Such a tree reorganization is something that happens in other projects as well, so it is a good opportunity to improve Git to cope well with such a situation if it isn't up to it yet. Nicolas