Re: [RFC+PATCH 1/1] Move SCM interoperability tools into scm/

From: Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com>
Date: Jul 9, 2006, 22:23 UTC
Message-ID: <20060709222308.GA4153@h4x0r5.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060709221326.GU29115@pasky.or.cz>

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:13:26AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Dear diary, on Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:26:59PM CEST, I got a letter
> where Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> said that...
> > So I have to ask... what are the expected benefits of the move?
> 
> I've been meaning to do something like this for some time already; my
> itch have been the builtins. The tree size _is_ getting out of hand and
> a little more categorization of the sources would certainly help.

That's what I was thinking, as well, basically. I started with the "scm interop" tools because they should be the least controversial to move around.

Show 11 quoted lines

> Although I'd take a different approach:
> 
> 	libgit/
> 	builtin/
> 	standalone/
> 	scripts/
> 
> > In any case, use /interop instead. /scm in the tree of an SCM could be
> > anything ;-)
> 
> I agree on this point.

Very good point.

So these seem obvious to me:
	libgit/ (maybe just lib/?)
	builtin/
	interop/

I'm less sure of the rest, but I'll poke at doing the above for the moment, and worry about the rest later.

Comments on a way to make the Makefile less repetitive would be appreciated, though.

-- 
Ryan Anderson
  sometimes Pug Majere