Hi, Ollivier Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> configs are not the way to manage big trees, they are a minimalist > workaround (and not a satisfying one at that). In fact, I'm fairly convinced that configs are more than a workaround. A good question, in fact, is not whether configs are a good solution to the huge tree performance problem or not: the question is "are huge source trees advisable?" As someone mentioned, GCC could certainly be split into a number of projects. This could have a positive impact on code quality -- the APIs would have to be well-thought, things would have to be "librarified" as Tom would say, which means that various components could be untangled and made independent and reusable. The same goes for Linux: why do all these drivers, filesystems, etc. _have to_ be within the kernel tree? Of course, one may argue that it's not the job of the revision control tool to advocate a way to organize projects. Arch' configs help keep track of dependencies, more than working around a performance problem. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
