Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 01:53:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, nate@mt.sri.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More breakage in -current as a result of header frobbing. Message-ID: <199802230153.SAA17096@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199802221440.HAA24031@mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Feb 22, 98 07:40:22 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> FreeBSD's problem is that everyone has 'broken' the tree enough times > that no-one is willing to brandish the 'big stick' to whack people for > making bad commits. If you've got no negative feedback, then you've got > no reason to test changes. I think that "the big stick" approach is fundamentally flawed; that's why I think the software should be doing the procedural enforcement, so that "the big stick" is unnecessary. You have my suggested method of enforcing a procedure that results in a buildable tree. Personally, I'm not hell-bent on reader/writer locks; I just know that they are one method which would tend to work, especially if the lock release required a build-step before it would release (no, not a "build world", unless the dependencies can be fixed). Feel free to suggest other alternatives for software enforcement of buildability; like I said above, I'm not necessarily wedded to the lock idea -- it's *a* soloution, not *the only* soloution. 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802230153.SAA17096>