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@reactos.org>: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:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] 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@sfr.fr>
> Datum: 06.03.2015 12:03 (GMT+01:00)
> An: 'ReactOS Development List' <ros-dev@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:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] 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:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] De la part de
>> Aleksey Bragin Envoyé : vendredi 6 mars 2015 00:15 À :
>> ros-dev@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@svn.reactos.org wrote:
>>> Author: hbelusca
>>> Date: Thu Mar 5 23:03:33 2015
>>> New Revision: 66575
>>>> _______________________________________________>>> Log:
>>> Start source tree (final, I hope!) restructuration. Part 1/X Win32,
>>> Shell, Services, MVDM
>>>
>>
>
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> Ros-dev@reactos.org
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
--
Pierre Schweitzer <pierre@reactos.org>System & Network Administrator
Senior Kernel Developer
ReactOS Deutschland e.V.
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev2015-03-06 13:57 GMT+01:00 Aleksey Bragin <aleksey@reactos.org>:On 06.03.2015 15:46, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
On 03/06/2015 01:30 PM, Hermès BÉLUSCA - MAÏTO wrote: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.
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.
Regards,
Aleksey Bragin
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev