From owner-cvs-all Wed Dec 2 22:21:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA04801 for cvs-all-outgoing; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 22:21:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA04794; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 22:21:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA13731; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 22:22:35 -0800 (PST) To: Matthew Dillon cc: Nate Williams , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: proposal: simple cvs mod to handle shared checked-out source trees In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Dec 1998 20:24:44 PST." <199812030424.UAA21145@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 22:22:35 -0800 Message-ID: <13727.912666155@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > I don't understand this 'this is not the CVS way of doing things' > mantra you keep ringing up. I see no problem with it at all... perhaps > you are not willing to consider new ways of using old software, but Since it's a totally elective flag and I haven't seen anything so far which would _mandate_ it being a site-specific enhancement (I've seen preference/style issues raised, but nothing constituting an actual mandate against it) I would say that it would probably be easier on everyone if it was just committed now rather than expending another 3 dozen emails in cvs-foo over it. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message