From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 22 17:40:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA20959 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:40:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA20944 for ; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 17:40:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr08.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA04050; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 18:40:15 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr08.primenet.com(206.165.6.208) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd003980; Sun Feb 22 18:40:09 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA16400; Sun, 22 Feb 1998 18:40:03 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199802230140.SAA16400@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: More breakage in -current as a result of header frobbing. To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 01:40:03 +0000 (GMT) Cc: grog@lemis.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, nate@mt.sri.com, tlambert@primenet.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <12512.888186392@critter.freebsd.dk> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Feb 22, 98 11:26:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >Back to the original subject, guys. I proposed the following > > > > [...] > > I don't think it will fly, I think trying to synchronize the factors > which control the time our hackers have to devote to FreeBSD would > be a major mistake... I agree. The unfortunate effect of following the suggestion, even if the time window control weren't a factor, would be to trigger all commits in a relatively short window. This is exactly the type of situation which will result in Bob and Fred committing conflicting changes that result in an unbuildable tree. Without some software-enforced procedural mechanism for avoiding this type of collision, hashing commits over "all available time" is as good a method as any. At least you get statistical protection, if nothing else. If you get a hash collision (ie: Bob and Fred's commits overlap), well, then you're potentially screwed, and if so, then it's going to require actual work to get the tree buildable. Not that this happening with an artificially bloated frequency wouldn't make my cvs locking proposal look a lot more desirable... ;-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message