Re: isofs/cd9660 -> relocate to fs/isofs/cd9660?

On Friday 29 September 2006 12:19, Scott Long wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 27 September 2006 16:43, Scott Long wrote:
> > 
> >>Eric Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>>I noticed that cd9660 file system is in sys/isofs/cd9660 instead of what 
> >>>seems more logical: sys/fs/cd9660.  Is there any reason not to move it? 
> >>>   Curious mostly..
> >>>
> >>>Eric
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Inertia, mostly.  And if you move cd9660, do you also move ufs?  Let the
> >>bi-yearly debate begin.....
> >>
> >>Btw, this is a topic that is easily searched on, as it gets brought up
> >>fairly regularly.  We were a bit late on the schedule this time, though,
> >>so thanks for giving it a kickstart.
> > 
> > 
> > We've actually moved most of the filesystems into sys/fs in the past.  
Only 
> > cd9660, nfs, and ufs are in the top-level.  I'd still say leave nfs and 
ufs 
> > alone, but sys/isofs/cd9660 -> sys/fs/cd9660 (I wouldn't keep the extra 
isofs 
> > directory) probably wouldn't be but so painful at this point.
> > 
> 
> What about moving all of the net* directories into /sys/net?.  And
> don't forget putting i386 and friends into /sys/arch!  Ah, I love the
> smell of fresh paint in the morning.  Smells like.... napalm.

Baby steps aren't hard. :)  Back when I first made rumblings about this sort 
of thing we didn't have a sys/fs at all, but now we do and over time we've 
actually moved most of our filesystems into it. :)

-- 
John Baldwin