Re: control-center reorganization in CVS
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>
- To: Chema Celorio <chema ximian com>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>, Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: control-center reorganization in CVS
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:32:16 -0700
On 04Jul2001 10:35AM (-0500), Chema Celorio wrote:
> On 04 Jul 2001 10:13:29 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM> writes:
> > > Wait - why would we *not* rename the (future) tarballs? Renaming a module
> > > and keeping the tarball name sthe same sounds positively
> > > counter-intuitive, not to mention possile nuisance (did I untar or cvs co
> > > this source? etc.)
> > >
> > Changing tarball names screws various things up, such as the ftp site
> > scripts and RPMs.
> I agree that we should keep the same name for the tarball.
Having cvs module names that don't match the tarball name confuses
The ftp site is not that important because people can live without
diffs. And RPMs can be fixed by putting in an appropriate "obsoletes"
directive or whatever. In fact GNOME 2 is already going to rename
and/or split up many modules, so this particular case will not make a
All that being said however, I think it would be better to reorganize
things in place on the HEAD than to create a new module, since
renaming the module is in itself annoying.
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
] [Thread Prev