From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 21:53:48 GMT
Subject: Re: [1.8.0] reorganize the mess that the source tree has become
Message-ID: <7v1v3rzaj7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110201014807.GA2722@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> 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 am with you, both counts on this topic.  I don't necessarily agree that
having sources at the top-level is bad, I don't want to see Nico wasting
his time arguing, and I do see some value in the proposal that gives us an
opportunity for dogfooding (but we already have done so with builtin/ and
it was not all that annoying---I think the timing was rather good and the
tree was semi-quiescent).

Ehh, that makes it not "both" but "two and half" counts ;-).

As long as the new directories are named sanely (one of the things I
detest is abbreviated uppercase silliness like "Src", "Lib"), I am fine
with the proposal.  Also I have a mild preference to keep build-products
next to the source (i.e. no separate "obj" directory).