Re: [lwip-members] source rearrangements

[Jani Monoses]

yes I meant the list too :)

> Hi!
> 
> (Did you indent to send this to the list as well, or only to me?)
> 
> On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 14:13, Jani Monoses wrote:
> > > I agree. What about proto/ and lib/ instead of core/? Also the ipv4/ and
> > > ipv6/ should be removed, I think.
> > yes I think so too but what to do with the ipv6 stuff?it shouldn't be mixed 
> > with ipv4
> > sources.Is it used by anybody?
> 
> I don't know if the v6 stuff is used much. Perhaps the include files
> could stay in v4 and v6 subdirectories, but move the codefiles into the
> same directory?
>  
> > > > Maybe the arch dir should be top level to as source and proj are.
> > > 
> > > Agreed.
> > 
> > How about setting up a separate cvs module too?A bit more of a work but 
> > it'll worth
> > it especially since contributors of ports can maintain them themselves 
> > without the need
> > to pass through a commity :) david's coldfire port is in the patchlist but 
> > I'd rather not
> > shove that too in lwip..
> 
> Sounds like a very good idea to me. There could be problems synching
> versions and stuff, but such problems should exist even with a single
> cvs repository.

Yes it would be easier to maintain.When changing core code you don't need to 
walk all the drivers
and ports and tread over what their maintainers might be doing.And if they care 
they stay in sync 
especially because porters tend to be contributors to core code too so far.