Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 20:17:24 -0700 From: Gordon Tetlow <gordon@tetlows.org> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleaning up the CDDL import mess Message-ID: <AANLkTinxn0G4EVqJvSInTfaxVzRk1OxCseKxEDvTbrod@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <B49C7178-FA47-4BBE-BFEF-CB137C114A94@FreeBSD.org> References: <B49C7178-FA47-4BBE-BFEF-CB137C114A94@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> wrote: > Right now we have four locations for CDDL import code: > > 1) vendor-cddl > 2) vendor/opensolaris > 3) vendor-sys/opensolaris > 4) and... HEAD itself. > > 1) vendor-cddl seems to be the first DTrace import and it's probably ready > to be svn rm'ed because it creates too much confusion. The first thing > someone who is looking at CDDL source is to probably look at vendor-cddl and > I would like to avoid this. > But I don't know what will happen to the mergeinfo in head/cddl and > head/sys/cddl (I think no harm will be done). > > 2 and 3) These are the correct locations IMHO and I know that jhb did move > the code here in the past. > > 4) The ZFS code lives in HEAD, unfortunately. I thought the policy was to > have a vendor import for vendor code so that we could merge *from* upstream > more easily. I was told that this is being done to some extent in Perforce, > but I don't know how acceptable this to the community. > > I need to import some DTrace code into 2 and 3, but I would like to svn rm > vendor-cddl, if there are no objections. > Sounds reasonable. I would clear it with cvsadm@ (is that the appropriate list these days?) on the mergeinfo question. Gordon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinxn0G4EVqJvSInTfaxVzRk1OxCseKxEDvTbrod>