On 03/06/2015 01:30 PM, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote: > First I would prefer to revert everything I done so far for that (failed) > attempt of tree restructure, because otherwise nobody will be happy. As far > as I can see in a local SVN repo I did here, if I revert to the tree shape > pre-66575 nothing should break (I mean, if you update your local copy that > was at, let’s say, revision 66574 and you update to revision > after-my-would-be-revert, it should be ok, your local changes should survive.
Given these last information, I'm all for a revert. > > > > Then it would be nice to have a discussion with everybody and seriously to > how move the main parts of the things. > > > > Cheers, > > Hermès. > > > > De : Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] De la part de daniel.reimer > Envoyé : vendredi 6 mars 2015 13:12 > À : ReactOS Development List > Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 66575: Start source tree (final, > I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32, Shell, Services, MVDM > > > > Hii, > > > > Well... In theory the restructuring might be logical and maybe even a good > idea to separate some of the DLL/win32 folder etc, but this can't be done as > one man show. It breaks the patches in jira, breaks the stuff our devs might > have locally and maybe someone has something to say to your plans. > > How to resolve this? Tbh, no clue. But a open discussion BEFORE commiting > would be a start IMO. So guys, what now? Can we keep it or not? > > > > Greetings > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > Von meinem Samsung Gerät gesendet. > > > > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- > Von: Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO <hermes.belu...@sfr.fr> > Datum: 06.03.2015 12:03 (GMT+01:00) > An: 'ReactOS Development List' <ros-dev@reactos.org> > Betreff: Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 66575: Start source tree > (final, I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32, Shell, Services, MVDM > > So... > > ... must I revert trunk pre-66575 ? > > Hermès. > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] De la part de Aleksey > Bragin > Envoyé : vendredi 6 mars 2015 10:48 > À : ReactOS Development List > Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 66575: Start source tree > (final, I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32, Shell, Services, MVDM > > On 06.03.2015 2:58, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote: >> Hi, >> >> So first, please receive my apologies for not having warned in ros-dev >> about this (continuation of) tree restructure I did starting with >> r66575. Indeed this was the first thing to do before doing anything, >> even if I talked about that on IRC and JIRA! > Wrong. > You did not need to warn, you need to get majority of devs to support this > change, to get comments from them, to make sure they continue to feel "at > home" in ReactOS source code. > > Right now, for the sake of subjective beautification you just forced > everyone but you to adapt their patches (myself included, I have many > working copies) just because you feel the tree structure was wrong. > > This is just ridiculous. As Pierre said, we are a team here. And teamwork > without big issues is what is making our project a good place to work in, to > get pleasure and satisfaction from the work done. > > >> In fact, the tree restructure discussion started 5 years ago, along >> with the cmake bringup: see the big thread here: >> http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2010-July/013257.html . > Imagine what, I was part of it. > >> At that >> time the main argument was that we were also in the middle of changing >> the old build system (rbuild) to a new one (cmake) so it was >> problematic to do those two big changes at once. Also at that time, >> seeing the argumentation of Ged, Timo, Jérôme and the few others >> (active developers) who dared to participate to this discussion, it >> was clear that a tree restructure was necessary anyway, sooner or later. > This is called > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization . After you made > the change you start explaining that everyone was supporting it, it was so > much needed, and let's just forget about any side-effects it may have > caused. > >> In 2012 some tree restructure happened (r56305) by moving around and >> in a more logical manner some core components of win32. > Yep. > >> What happens now in 2015, i.e. 5 years after ? We have CMake well >> established, everything works, but only win32 core was reorganized. > Sure, 5 years is a magic number which means you can safely ignore everyone > else and just force your own change. > >> I made http://jira.reactos.org/browse/CORE-9111 , people started to >> give proposals. You came back with the almost same argument, that is >> to finish the existing things first (adapt that: at the time of CMake, >> it was CMake, now, it's fix all ReactOS 0.4 bugs), and then improve >> structure of source tree. Since not all the existing bugs will be >> fixed by then, we can continue this way and wait another 5 years in order > to have a real tree restructure? >> I don't think so. >> So I took that for granted and committed r66575. > You know, users don't care about source code tree structure. Tree is for > developers. Users (and hence, popularity and usability of ReactOS) like when > ReactOS does not crash, when ReactOS runs their apps, when ReactOS loads > native binary drivers. > And my point is that internal changes (code refactorings, tree restructures, > reformatting) must happen only when the advantage of that is more than the > disadvantage/side effects. > Are you going to say that ReactOS 0.4 is closer now because you restructured > the tree according to your taste? Was there any urge to do the restructure? > >> Active developers really think (at least, myself) it's a pain in the >> *** > The key part: "myself". Let's face it: you silently ignored my opinion and > decided not to ask anyone else. This is PITA, not the tree structure. > >> that when we code on some given module (example: shell), we need to >> modify some bit of code in base/shell/whatever, some bit of code in >> dll/win32/shell32, some bit of code here and there. All the code of >> the shell should be tied together. This goes also for everything else: >> the core of NT (kernel, ntdll, "base" drivers...), the win32 subsystem >> (win32k; for it the change in r56305 started to make things more >> logical: you would not have to modify code in some win32k/ directory >> while also changing >> dll/win32/gdi32 or dll/win32/user32 that were by the way amongst all >> the rest of wine dlls, etc...) . > It's not "more logical", it's just different logical approaches. > >> Because I didn't want to wait yet another 5 years I decided to start >> something. > Just remember, trunk is not your private branch. You have to take other devs > opinion into account. And you are not always right. Sometimes even Alex > Ionescu fails, though I must say it happens very rare. > Get used to convince people. Remember Arwinss? Did I just delete the > existing trunk win32ss back then? Imagine if I did? My reasoning was > perfect, the subsystem was superior to trunk back then in many ways, and "I > did not want to wait another 10 years for someone to finish trunk's > win32ss". > >> OK my fault I would have to get a synthesis of the different proposals >> of tree restructures I got, then put in ros-dev, then wait 1 month >> until everybody starts to vote. Of course you would get people >> thinking it's better to do à la Wine and sort the files by extension >> type (that's what we almost have currently) and it was already >> repeated that it is BAD because it doesn't translate the fact that >> ROS/windows is built by modules; others would have thought it's nice >> to have this piece of thing next to another one whereas this can be >> postponed later on until the *obvious* parts of code have been properly > packed together. > Yes, unless I don't know something and suddenly all your ideas are > absolutely true without the need for verification. Mine aren't, I always > consult with other skilled people. > >> And because of that, here is my proposal: UNTIL details get fixed, I >> propose >> to: >> - keep the /boot/, /include/, /lib/, /media/ and /tools/ directories >> (as well as /cmake/ and the files in / ) untouched. >> - ntoskrnl, ntdll and the drivers we have in /drivers/ (SAUF, the >> multimedia >> ones) go into some main "ntcore" directory (ntcore, ntos, call it >> whatever you prefer. I'm inclined to the second name, but I'm ok with the > first one). >> - the keyboard layouts can be moved either to win32ss/ or to / (in >> case we can give sense to keyboard layouts in "pure" NT, for example >> when we run usetup, etc...) >> - ok... my already-done (but revertable) modifs from 66575 (directory >> renamings can be done, it's not set in stone). >> - putting all printing support in some /win32/printsup (or >> "printing"...) directory : that means: localspl, ntprint, printui, >> spoolsv and spoolss, and winspool (so far...) > Oh, now you shared your secret plan with us. Thank you so much! > Actually, I would like to invent something better than just copying the NT > source code tree layout. > >> That's what I'm 99.99% sure (and what I think is quite clear). >> Concerning the rest (that can create discussion) I still keep it in old > directories. > ... >> Regards, >> Hermès. >> >> >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Ros-dev [mailto:ros-dev-boun...@reactos.org] De la part de >> Aleksey Bragin Envoyé : vendredi 6 mars 2015 00:15 À : >> ros-dev@reactos.org Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] >> 66575: Start source tree (final, I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X >> Win32, Shell, Services, MVDM >> >> Hermes, >> >> What the fuck, may I ask? >> >> I don't understand since when we started doing big changes in trunk >> without talking (or listening) to anyone at all, just at your own > discretion? >> >> Are you so sure the change is accepted by majority of our developers? >> Did you get approval of those devs? Give them some respect which they >> earned over years with their skills and commitment. >> >> I understand ReactOS is a very loosely managed project (to favor ease >> of development), but totally ignoring everyone? >> I checked CORE-9111 and I don't see any single comment from Timo, >> Jerome, James, whoever else counts. >> >> Regards, >> Aleksey Bragin >> P.S. I'm not talking about actual changes, I'm talking about the >> process and attitude. >> >> On 06.03.2015 2:03, hbelu...@svn.reactos.org wrote: >>> Author: hbelusca >>> Date: Thu Mar 5 23:03:33 2015 >>> New Revision: 66575 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=66575 >>> <http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=66575&view=rev> &view=rev >>> Log: >>> Start source tree (final, I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32, >>> Shell, Services, MVDM >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > -- Pierre Schweitzer <pie...@reactos.org> System & Network Administrator Senior Kernel Developer ReactOS Deutschland e.V.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
