Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [hbelusca] 66575: Start source tree (final, I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32, Shell, Services, MVDM

[James Tabor]

Adapt and over come,,, or die...... Sounds like a daily ReactOS thing.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Magnus Johnsson <magnusjjj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   Question, from someone who is not a ReactOS dev, a
> solution to this kind
>  of thing might be, say, have a plan for how (if) restructuring is to be
>  done, and, oh, a vote? I don't think that the work put in needs to be
>  thrown away, but maybe said patches could be broken up into smaller ones
>  and being judged case-by-case? Also, if you could document the work that
>  needed to be done to allow restructuring to be done the way you planned,
>  that might certainly be helpful not only for this case, but maybe could be
>  hacked into a newbie-guide for how the source tree is laid out :).
>
>  2015-03-06 13:46 GMT+01:00 Pierre Schweitzer <pierre(a)reactos.org>rg>:
>
> >   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:[e-mail]] 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.belusca(a)sfr.fr>
> >  > Datum: 06.03.2015 12:03 (GMT+01:00)
> >  > An: 'ReactOS Development List' <ros-dev(a)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:[e-mail]] 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:[e-mail]] De la part de
> > > >  Aleksey Bragin Envoyé : vendredi 6 mars 2015 00:15 À :
> > > >  ros-dev(a)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, hbelusca(a)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(a)reactos.org
> >  > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > Ros-dev mailing list
> >  > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> >  >
> >  > _______________________________________________
> >  > Ros-dev mailing list
> >  > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  >
> >
> >
> >  --
> >  Pierre Schweitzer &lt;pierre(a)reactos.org&gt;
> >  System & Network Administrator
> >  Senior Kernel Developer
> >  ReactOS Deutschland e.V.
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>
>  2015-03-06 13:57 GMT+01:00 Aleksey Bragin &lt;aleksey(a)reactos.org&gt;rg>:
>
> >   On 06.03.2015 15:46, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
> >
> > >   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.
> > >  
> >  Me too, even though technically I like some aspects of the restructure,
> >  and appreciate your time spent on the issue, it's definitely not wasted.
> >
> >  Regards,
> >  Aleksey Bragin
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>