From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 24 12:28:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA02299 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:28:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA02286 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 12:28:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA13240; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:20:35 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199711241922.UAA21949@bitbox.follo.net> References: Nate Williams's message of Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:04:04 -0700 <199711240216.CAA28304@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <199711240504.WAA22051@mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:18:46 -0600 To: Eivind Eklund From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Version Resolution? Cc: brian@awfulhak.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 1:22 PM -0600 11/24/97, Eivind Eklund wrote: >I'll oppose anything that break the repositories (ANY case where they >break the repositories) > or absolutely need manual intervention. I'm >willing to accept growth (as long as it is low compared to the growth >of the rest of the repository). > >Was that included in your sentiment? It all depends on how you define your terms. By "break the repositories", I will accept only the following 1) Causes CVS to hang/abort, etc. 2) Causes the alteration of a file outside the set affected. 3) Causes the delivery of a file which is not syntactically valid. I will not include x) Produces a valid, but unexpected, result in the content of a file which is part of the mechanism. y) Has the POTENTIAL to allow something (or someone) to break ... I do not accept the requirement to exclude manual intervention. EVERY change to the system requires some manual intervention. Failure to perform all of the steps simply means that the installation is incomplete. As long As for the rate of growth, I feel that we already have a significant problem. I think that we need some alternate storage scheme that allows MOST of the historical information to be taken off-line. Those few individuals who need access to the older stuff should be able to access it on a machine which has the archived information mounted without REQUIRING everyone who wants the active material to also have all of the older material. Richard Wackerbarth