Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:57:19 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> To: drhodus@machdep.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Public Access to Perforce? Message-ID: <4123603F.2050201@cronyx.ru> In-Reply-To: <fe77c96b04081806244f5bf1eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <200408160104.03708.chris@behanna.org> <fe77c96b04081709382a6fb411@mail.gmail.com> <41234FC6.1000005@cronyx.ru> <fe77c96b04081806244f5bf1eb@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I fully agree with you. But this not affect "open source"ness. I'd rather call it open development. rik David Rhodus wrote: >On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:47:02 +0400, Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> wrote: > > >>David Rhodus wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:04:03 -0400, Chris BeHanna <chris@behanna.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Forgive me if this already exists. I searched the list archives, >>>>google, and freebsd.org and did not find any way for non-committers to >>>>have read-only access to the p4 repo. >>>> >>>> Is there a read-only account that the general public could use? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>With the perforce trees being hidden away without public access to the >>>changes, this makes the FreeBSD project no longer an open source >>>project. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>This hides only development proccess, not a stable result. >>If you don't have access to my home disks were I keep my >>intermediate code with additional debug/hacks and so on >>while I am debuggin new functionality would affect open >>source status of results of my work? >> >>rik >> >> > >No this is not what I'm talking about, I don't think that level of >development work is able to sustain here. The development work should >be done in the public cvs tree were it is open to public scrutiny and >were a section of the community can help on the development process. >The current method of merging large commits back into the cvs tree >from the perforce tree's should be inexcusable by the FreeBSD >community. If perforce is the choice for FreeBSD a line needs to be >drawn and completely move over to it. Then when the commercial >problem comes from someone, well, we now have the foundation. I'm >sure they can work something out with perforce. Even if that means >contracting someone for ~80hrs of development work to write a perforce >clone. > >The FreeBSD project has a -stable and a -current tree. This system >has been under heavy abuse for the past several years now which is one >of the leading causes of the major bulk of the development work to be >pushed into perforce trees. This issue and the overwhelming unneeded >complexity the code base has grown into are the reasons the >development work is now being done were the public isn't able to >access the code until a large commit hits the cvs tree. These large >commits are a not harder to audit than a small steady stream of >changes, which has always been the preferred method. > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4123603F.2050201>