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.