[openbeos] Re: Openness/Participation

  • From: Simon Taylor <simontaylor1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:10:37 +0000

> From: Marcus Overhagen <marcusoverhagen@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2007/05/17 Thu AM 12:52:22 GMT
> To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [openbeos] Re: Openness/Participation
> Simon Kennedy wrote:
> > Speaking of being confused by the source code layout would it be 
> > possible/useful if we could have a 2 stage build process where the 
> > source tree is organized not by the final position of the source files 
> > but by their function. For example a graphics driver which has a driver, 
> No

If you know how files are laid out in a BeOS system, the source tree is 
perfectly logical. For those that don't a summary document would probably be 
useful. Just a case of finding someone willing to write it :)

If there's a problem with graphics driver x's accelerant then the devs (most of 
whom have significant BeOS experience) know exactly where to find it instantly. 
I used BeOS for a bit, and I suspect I could find it with only one or two wrong 
turns (not bad in a tree the size of Haiku's).

Any new reorganisation would have a steep learning curve for the current 
developers and lead to controversy (which category does x fall into?). The only 
advantage would be for new developers who have never seen BeOS' filesystem 
layout. It's more useful for them to have only one new heirarchy to get used to 
- but it would be nice to have a simple intro document for them as I mentioned 


Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

Other related posts: