xc/programs considered harmful

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 09:36 -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> >On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 17:34 +0100, Roland Mainz wrote:
> >>Daniel Stone wrote:
> >>>Does anyone realistically care about[0] the following directories:
> >>>xc/programs/xterm
> >>>      
> >>xterm is being used and should stay exactly at that place. Even when the
> >>only reason is to avoid screwing-up the CVSblame.
> >>    
> >
> >Can we please move it to extras/, to reflect the fact that pretty much
> >all we do is import from its upstream, Thomas Dickey?
> 
> I have experience that renaming or moving long-lived file structures
> usually increases, not decreases, overall confusion.

It is obviously a change, yes.  But surely we can tell people this.
README, mailing lists, websites, whatever.  We can get the word out on
the street.

> >I would be happy to formally propose the move of these to the modular
> >tree.
> 
> The modular tree methodology is not clear- is there a roadmap
> for the transition?  What does it mean to move sources to the modular
> tree? Let's just say there will be a 6.8.3 before modular is ready.
> Would xterm Not ship in 6.8.3?

Presuming there was a 6.8.3, then that would obviously have to come off
XORG-6_8-branch, which would still contain xc/programs/xterm.

Here's the roadmap:
	* Start moving stuff from the monolithic tree to the modular tree.
    * Declare the move finished when there is nothing left.

By 'move sources', I mean just that.  You remove the sources from the
monolithic tree (leaving history intact, of course), and then you add
them to the modular tree, again with history intact (either by a
straight cp -R if you really want to, or via a CVS vendor branch if you
care about better preserving line-of-development visibility).

> >It is not to cause trouble to anyone.  If we are to move to the modular
> >tree, we can't just expect it to sort of happen the week before the
> >release or something.  The work needs to start (no -- we have working
> >client-side libraries and a server; let's say 'continue') now.  If you
> >wish to keep the monolithic structure and not transition to a modular
> >tree, please let me know and we can have that debate.  But I think there
> >is universal consensus on where we need to go (modular), and how to get
> >there (gradually transition applications out of the monolithic tree).
> 
> "Universal consensus" is such an absolute and hard line position
> to take, I wonder how well it plays considering that our most productive
> minds have had so many other important issues to deal with.

Yes, but I have not seen anyone suggesting anything other than a move to
a modular structure as our long-term plan.

> You can say that Modular is not getting shouted down every time
> the word is uttered, but that's because the argument has gone around
> in circles and its not worthwhile to bleet on.

I assume from this that you object to the idea of a modular structure as
a long-term plan for X.  Would this be correct?

> AFAIK Modular hasn't 
> received enough effort for its proponents to be able to say "Look at 
> this, its a better idea, and you can now see for yourself".

There's a working server, and working client-side libraries.  And
working applications, and working fonts.

I honestly don't see what else has to be done; apologies for my lack of
insight on this matter.

> The Modular
> proponents need to increase their own value but not by diminishing the
> value of Monolithic.

The modular tree has only come around because the monolithic tree is
problematic.  If it didn't have problems, then we'd all just have been
doing this on a whim, for over a year now.

Stuart, how can I, as a 'Modular proponent', or someone whose 'pet
project' is the modular tree, or whatever I'm getting tagged with this
email, increase the value of a modular structure?