On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Feb 2011, George Spelvin wrote: > >> For what it's worth, I don't see the "cleanup". >> >> If it significantly reduced the size of the largest directory, >> that would be a win. ÂBut moving everything into src/ doesn't >> do that. >> >> If there's a way to divide the source into cohesive subunits, that >> would be great. ÂA programmer could ignore whole subdirectories >> when working on something. >> >> But just moving the whole existing pile into a subdirectory "because >> everyone else does it" is not a reason; that's superstition. > > There is no superstition here, simply basic elegance. > > When you pick up a book from a shelf, do you see the actual content of > the book printed right from the inside of the cover page, and the table > of content tossed in the margin? ÂWould you construct a book yourself > that way? > > A nice source tree should be organized with a minimum of hierarchical > structure. ÂTo a newbie wanting to contribute to Git, it is rather > frightening to cd into the git directory and see that ls generates more > than 280 entries. ÂThat simply looks sloppy. ÂAnd this gets much worse > after a make. > > The top directory should make different things stand out much more > clearly, like a preface and a table of content. ÂYou have the > documentation here, the source there, the tests there, a clearly visible > README file, etc. ÂIf the src directory has about the same relative > number of files after a move that's fine. ÂAt least you should expect > _only_ source files in there (and possibly their by-products), and not > other types of data buried into the mix. > >> Having to type "src/" a lot more often is definitely a downside. > > Come on. ÂThis is a rather egocentric argument without much substance. > >> Heck, that's one thing I actively dislike about GNU autoconf conventions. > > This has _nothing_ about any autoconf convention. ÂGNU autoconf requires > stupid things like having a bunch of files such as CREDITS, INSTALL, > CHANGELOG, and other whatnots even if you have nothing to put in them, > in which case they still have to be there but empty. ÂIt also dictates > the exact name your directories must have, etc. > > I'm not proposing a tree reorganization because GNU autoconf commands > it, but rather because this is a sensible thing to do. > >> If there's a compelling reason to change, could someone please describe it? > > It's about the third time I'm putting forward arguments for this. > Please see the list archive. > > P.S. the netiquette on busy mailing lists recommends that you preserve > all the email addresses that were listed as recipients on the message > you reply to. ÂThat would be highly appreciated. > > > Nicolas > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at Âhttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > I'm not a hacker, but a user who had sometimes peeked into the git sources. Unbelievable mess... Impossible to see the structure in command line interface. I totally agree with Nicolas here. Folders were invented for a reason. IMHO src for source code build for build by-products tests for tests Come on, give us some love, please!;) Thanks, Eugene -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html