Merged repo for protocol headers? Why are they split?

[Dylan Baker]

Quoting Peter Hutterer (2017-11-21 16:25:47)
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:28:20PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Quoting Keith Packard (2017-11-21 12:51:24)
> > > Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Also, git://people.freedesktop.org/~keithp/newproto appears to contain
> > > > the script used to generate the merged repo.
> > > 
> > > Right, that's probably more useful today. The trick was to get the
> > > headers merged without losing any of the history.
> > > 
> > > > I would be entirely in favor of merging the protocol header repos,
> > > > fwiw. For that matter I'd be in favor of generating them from the xcb
> > > > xml, but let's burn one bridge at a time.
> > > 
> > > Who wants to take another run at this wall?
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > -keith
> > 
> > Your script splits each proto into a subdirectory, does it really make sense to
> > do that, or should the final proto package have everything together in the root?
> 
> please no! if you merge all repos the history will be messy. With subdirectories
> at least you get a nice git log for each individual repo if you specify the
> directory name.
> 
> Cheers,
>    Peter

With that in mind, does it still makes sense to merge the meson conversions I've
sent out, since the toplevel meson will likely simply be a bunch of `subdir()`
calls?

Dylan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <https://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20171122/0923c776/attachment.sig>