[Mesa3d-dev] Re: [Dri-devel] Mesa tree re-org

[Brian P. <br...@tu...>]

Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Brian Paul wrote:
> 
>> David Dawes wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 04:23:14PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds like the Mesa directory re-org should happen sooner, rather 
>>>> than later.
>>>>
>>>> I've been doing some research into CVS and it looks like there are 
>>>> two approaches to doing the re-org:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Use the usual cvs add/remove/commit commands to move everything 
>>>> around.  This would work, but it would be pretty tedious and we'd 
>>>> sort of lose the CVS histories.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Download the nightly CVS tarball to my machine, reorganize it, 
>>>> then upload it to SourceForge and have the SF admins install it as 
>>>> the new CVS tree.  The one issue with this approach is that it would 
>>>> effect all CVS branches.  A benefit would be the ability to _really_ 
>>>> remove the old, empty directories.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer option 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Depending on how you do option 2, you'll lose the ability to check out
>>> older versions as they used to be.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not a CVS expert, but my understanding is that tags are stored in 
>> each of the ,v files (not in a special tag file) and the ,v files have 
>> no paths stored in them.
>>
>> So, checking out an old branch will result in the OLD files in the NEW 
>> directory tree.  I can live with that.  Is that what you're describing?
>>
>>
>>> It is possible to do a combination of the two approaches, but that would
>>> require quite a bit of work. For example, the old ,v files wouldn't be
>>> removed, but rather copied to the new location, and the old tags for
>>> the files in the new locations would either be removed or renamed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, we could do that but I'm prepared to make a clean break at this 
>> point.
>>
>>
>>> Another option is to keep the old repository as-is, and start a new one
>>> (i.e., a new top level directory under the same $CVSROOT), seeded with
>>> the reorganised files from the old one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone else think we should do that?  I'm open to it.
> 
> 
> Actually, I think I'd prefer this.
> 
> The only issue is deciding on a name for the new module - 'mesa' is 
> taken... Perhaps we could rename the existing tree and start a new one 
> under 'mesa'?

Or, setup a "mesa-newtree" module, get it up and going, then when 
we're comfortable with it, rename it to "mesa" and the old module to 
"mesa-oldtree".

Either way, I like David's third approach best at this point.

I'll post the latest tree proposal in a bit and if there are no 
further changes by the end of today I'll start work ASAP.

-Brian