xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 00/20] xfs-cmds staging tree

To: Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] xfs-cmds staging tree
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:02:27 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20081222221613.GA7128@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20081222163831.755809000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <494FF9B3.9030103@xxxxxxx> <20081222204956.GA23453@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <495010A2.2030903@xxxxxxx> <20081222221613.GA7128@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 17:16 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:11:46AM +1100, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> >> One thing we were discussing is if it's really a good idea to have all
> >> these together.
> >
> > It would certainly help SGI if the directory structure for the proposed
> > xfs-cmds tree remained the same as it is in ptools at the moment. I
> > guess we could consider splitting each xfs-cmds directory into separate
> > repositories, but then building it all togetheer would be a pain. It could
> > certainly make sense to split off xfstests into it's own tree since it's
> > not part of the xfs-cmds build.
> 
> Ok, sounds fair to keep it like that for now.

Now seems like a good time to split it.  The distributions have to deal
with it this way, and for the most part developers don't need to go and
update acl/attr from the version shipped with their distro.  And now in
xfsprogs-3.0 the exported headers are sorted out, the interface between
the packages is much better defined ... if we don't break the link now,
we probably never will - so I'd vote for separate trees for each self-
contained package, personally.  Be good to allow agruen to directly be
able to commit to acl/attr for example, as Christoph said.

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>