On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:11:50 -0500:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:49:04 -0500:
> > > > Instead, I propose subdirectories named ev2 in the various libsvn_foo
> > > > directories which would hold Ev2 implementations. They would
> eventually
> > > go
> > >
> > > Not objected to subdirs, but have you considered just naming your files
> > > libsvn_repos/ev2_replay.c and so on? That doesn't need any build.conf
> > > changes...
> > >
> >
> > I thought about that, but didn't want to double the number of files in
> > something like libsvn_client where there are several editor
> implementations.
> >
> > I know we already have subdirectories in at least a couple of places
> > (mod_dav_svn comes to mind). Are the build.conf changes that invasive?
>
> No, they aren't invasive; they're just one more moving part --- and I've
> spent the last couple of days reducing the number of moving parts (in
> various other contexts), so I quite appreciate the difference between
> "0. Profit!" and "0. Foo 1. Profit!".
I completely understand (and agree!), but I think in this case it'd be
worth it to make the segregation more pronounced by using the
directory hierarchy as a namespace mechanism, rather than prepending
something to the filename.
-Hyrum
Received on 2012-11-27 16:02:16 CET