Merged repo for protocol headers? Why are they split?

[Peter Hutterer]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:50:16PM -0800, Dylan Baker wrote:
> 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?

that still works then, doesn't it? so I think I still makes sense.

Cheers,
   Peter