Re: [linuxsh-dev] [RFC] LinuxSH code reorg

[Greg B. <gb...@po...>]

"M. R. Brown" wrote:
> 
> * Greg Banks <gb...@po...> on Wed, Aug 01, 2001:
> 
> >
> >   So, when 2.5 is released, we start up a second drop-in tree
> > for 2.5.x, while keeping the first 2.4.x drop-in tree?
> 
> Yes[...]
> 
> >
> >   What happens if 2.5.x is released before this gets organised (a real
> > possibility)?  Do we then generate two seperate drop-in trees?
> >
> [...] yeah,[...]

  I assume both of these two drop-in trees live in sourceforge CVS.  What
happens to the old full tree in CVS?

  Also, do you intend to do both directory reorganisation and creation of
a drop-in tree in the same manuoevre, or as two distinct stages?

> >   I don't see how.  It will require someone -- almost certainly Niibe-san --
> > to do frequent time-consuming merges.  Just like he does now.  The difference
> > is that the final check-in will be much smaller.
> 
> Yes, and working with the smaller subset of files helps to ease that process.

  I'm yet to be convinced that the merge process is any easier, apart from
the long wait for CVS to upload hundreds of useless changes to files we don't
care about.  The gnarly manual bits in the middle are no different.  In other
words, the hard work is the same and the part where you have a cup of coffee
is shorter.

  Clearly, the download process for everyone else *is* heaps easier, plus we
use less CVS space, both of which are good.

Greg.
-- 
If it's a choice between being a paranoid, hyper-suspicious global
village idiot, or a gullible, mega-trusting sheep, I don't look
good in mint sauce.                      - jd, slashdot, 11Feb2000.