Re: [1.8.0] reorganize the mess that the source tree has become

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:29:54PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

quoted

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).