From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:26:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC+PATCH 1/1] Move SCM interoperability tools into scm/
Message-ID: <46a038f90607091426u5a6ea328h2090a876e51725ce@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <11524258261798-git-send-email-ryan@michonline.com>

On 7/9/06, Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com> wrote:
> This is the first in a series to categorize the source tree a little bit more
> than it is currently.

Given that you title it RFC, I guess it hasn't been discussed before.
I personally don't see much benefit from the move/rename. The tree is
not so large, the SCM import/export utilities are a single file each
and their names are quite clear. Having /contrib is more an issue of
marking utilities there as 'new, experimental, unsupported', and the
assumption is that when something matures it moves out of /contrib.

So I have to ask... what are the expected benefits of the move?

In any case, use /interop instead. /scm in the tree of an SCM could be
anything ;-)



martin