Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:16:10 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: shimon@simon-shapiro.org, thyerm@camtech.net.au, current@freebsd.org, Studded@dal.net, kong@kkk.ml.org, Alex Nash <nash@mcs.net> Subject: Re: Commit Approval (was Re: Firewall in kernel? - Found it! ) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980112150554.22477O-100000@shell.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199801121334.AAA00363@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Mike Smith wrote: ... > I can't imagine what else you might be doing. It's certainly not an > observation, as it has no basis in any observable fact or history, and > I was being too polite to suggest you were delusional... 8) I don't know about that. Current has been broken quite a bit lately. A good proof of this is NFS. When is the last time NFS worked properly? NFS seems to have fallen from grace from the 1.1.5.1 days, when people were ditching linux and others because of the rock-solid NFS in FreeBSD. Lots of this stuff in the archive. But now, NFS isn't that dependable. See archives again. ... > And an automated buildability checker will help here? One with > 'buildworld' latency? Why not educate the developer population instead? > Rather than frustration and rejected commits, you get increased > productivity and happier hackers. > > Why is it that prohibition is so much easier to advocate than > commonsense? Commonsense? Prohibition? Who knows... I don't understand why some developers are forced to make changes on branches, while others check stuff into the mainline branch? Perhaps branches should be used more often? This might prevent FreeBSD from getting stuck with unfinished chunks of code in the mainline branch. Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980112150554.22477O-100000>