[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Moving sound/* to drivers/ ?

    On Wed, 21 May 2008, Takashi Iwai wrote:
    > One thing that annoys me sometimes is that the sound driver codes are
    > on a different subdirectory than other normal drivers, namely under
    > /sound.

    I would certainly personally like drivers/sound more, and the placement at
    the top level is actually because the sound maintainers wanted it that
    way, probably to avoid the confusion with the old OSS drivers that used to
    live in drivers/sound.

    I forget the exact details. It's been many many years, and there may have
    been some real technical issues too. But basically sound/ was created when
    ALSA was first merged, and we had a lot of renames from drivers/sound/xyz
    to sound/oss/xyz.

    (It may have been that it was simply easier to have a new subdirectory
    than it was to re-use the old one. In fact, with BK and patches, that
    was generally the best way to guarantee that the rename-tool did the
    right thing, so details like that may have been part of it. I forget).

    So I would personally certainly not mind somebody doing a

    git mv sound drivers/sound
    .. edit makefiles and Kconfig files appropriately ..
    git commit -a

    and it wouldn't be a problem for git (ie the repository wouldn't grow or
    anything like that).

    And doing pure renames (and not editing up a lot of actual files) would
    make rename detection easy for subsequent merges. The only real pain of
    renames is the efficiency of detection when you have lots and lots of
    files, but if the SHA1 of the file stays the same for the big bulk of
    them, that makes the problem basically go away (it becomes a much more
    interesting problem when you move hundreds of files around and _also_ edit
    the bulk of them - even if the edits are trivial, now you need to
    actually look at the contents to figure out the renames).

    > If I understand correctly, with git, we can move the files in
    > relatively little costs. So, what about moving sound/* back to
    > drivers/sound/* or drivers/media/sound/*?

    I'd personally prefer just drivers/sound - no point in making it any
    deeper than that.

    But I'd not be much affected myself, so I don't much care. I do agree that
    it would fit better under drivers/, but it's really mostly up to you guys.

    > Of course, the primary question is whether it's really worth.
    > The obvious drawback is that patches won't be applicable after the
    > move.

    Well, git merging is actually pretty good at this, so you can apply the
    patches to the old release and then merge it, and it will do the right
    thing (perhaps not for newly created files, but that's pretty easy to fix

    Also, even if you keep it as patches, as long as you move the whole
    subdirectory, then fixing up the patch is just a trivial
    search-and-replace, so I doubt it would be a big issue.

    But it's really up to you guys.

    Me personally, I've been more irritated by include/asm-xyz vs arch/xyz. It
    would be so nice if all the arch-specific changes woudl always show up
    under arch/ (both from a statistics standpoint, and just because then a
    diffstat really shows arch-specific stuff really obviously, and sorts all
    the arch-specific stuff together).


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-21 23:47    [W:0.024 / U:17.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site