Re: [PATCH RFC v3 2/2] Move libgit.a sources into separate "lib/" directory

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> > My own (obviously subjective and biased) take is that the tradeoff is
> >> > worth it, as these issues are a one-time cost while the benefits to
> >> > discoverability will be permanent.
> >> 
> >> It is not a one-time cost, but will be an ongoing burden.
> >
> > It is maybe drawn-out, but it is a one-time cost. It's not like we're
> > going to mass-rename source files to move them to `lib/` every two weeks
> > from now on.
> 
> Since the topic was posted, I have dealt with the fallout from it at
> least twice a day (which, when we are lucky, is not a huge time
> sink, as I have mostly automated it by now), and again every time a
> new topic is posted that touches the moved files in substantial ways
> or adds new files that ought to be moved.  The latter is the most
> time-consuming to handle.  This will continue until all contemporary
> topics, as well as the topic in question, graduate.
> 
> If that is not an ongoing burden, I do not know what is.

> > And this statement neglects to acknowledge that the lack of clean
> > organization of source code files is an ongoing burden _right now_, and
> > would be at least partially addressed by the move.
> 
> At least, Gábor does not seem to think that the lack of clean
> organization is so severe as to warrant a massive code churn like
> this.
> 
> I value stability much more than prettiness.  If we had started out
> with almost nothing at the root level and almost everything in
> either 'lib' or 'builtin', I would have strongly preferred to keep
> that structure.  But since we have been using a layout that has all
> built-in commands in 'builtin', with subsystems like 'refs' and
> 'odb' in their own directories, and everything else at the root
> level, I would prefer to keep that organization until a substantial
> subsystem update wants to carve out a new location for itself, just
> as past updates to create 'builtin', 'refs', and 'odb' did.
> 
> Compared to those past moves, the proposed change looks more like
> churn for the sake of moving things around, without achieving any
> real organizational improvement.
> 
> I must say that I, too, remain skeptical.