Backup ALL your local changes.Svn doesn't do existed-deleted-but-is-back
changes :as the history goes, it deletes, adds and changes files. With local
changes, you get tree conflicts : modified but deleted.
Again, back up with svn diff and/or plain copy the working copy before any
update. Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle
De : Pierre Schweitzer <[email protected]>
À : ReactOS Development List <[email protected]>
Envoyé le : Vendredi 6 mars 2015 13h46
Objet : Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 66575: Start source tree (final,
I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32, Shell, Services, MVDM
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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]>
> Datum: 06.03.2015 12:03 (GMT+01:00)
> An: 'ReactOS Development List' <[email protected]>
> 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:[email protected]] 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:[email protected]] De la part de
>> Aleksey Bragin Envoyé : vendredi 6 mars 2015 00:15 À :
>> [email protected] 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, [email protected] 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
> [email protected]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
--
Pierre Schweitzer <[email protected]>
System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
