From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jun 20 2:44:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from cygnus.rush.net (cygnus.rush.net [209.45.245.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900ED14C9B for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 02:44:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@rush.net) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by cygnus.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA17550; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 05:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 04:44:53 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein To: Chuck Robey Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: laying down tags In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > > I notice that in the last 6 months a change has occurred in how we use > > > our cvs tools, in that there's a great increase in the usage of tags. > > > > And that's a good thing. Even though it adds some file bloat, > > insufficient use of tags has made some painful events in the past more > > painful than they had to be and it restricted other people from doing > > certain types of experimental work. We have been traditionally quite > > tag-shy for the reasons you mention and it limits the full benefits of > > CVS considerably to be so. > > > > > I also notice that while I often want to see the last version of a > > > particular port, I can not remember, ever, needing to see more than > > > that. The ports tree's profusion of 2-4 versions of the same piece of > > > > That's why ports are rarely tagged. > > I should not have brought up the thing about ports in that post, > because while ports' bloat annoys me, it hasn't anything to do with > tags, and probably just served to confuse. > > > In short, I disagree completely with you on the question of tags. > > Would you mind giving one example where not having tags hurt us? > I just want to fix in my head the type of thing, because it seems to me > that the same effect could have been gotten another (cheaper) way, and > one example will probably set me straight. Consider it preventative measures, several major overhauls of the VM, NFS and FS have occurred, had one of these mega commits been proven to be flawed in a major way it would have probably been extremely annoying to deal with, no? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message