Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:56:32 -0500 From: "Scot W. Hetzel" <hetzels@westbend.net> To: <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/3.0-19980923-BETA/ Message-ID: <031501bde81f$5673c5e0$c3e0d9cf@westbend.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> >Is there a need for (say): > >cvs-all (all commits) >cvs-30 (all commits related to 3.0 (aka -current, -beta, -stable etc) >cvs-22 (all commits related to 2.2.x (aka 2.2-stable etc) >cvs-ports (ports commits) >cvs-www (www tree) > >ie: >- a commit to src/* in -current would go to cvs-all and cvs-30. >- a commit to docs/* would go to cvs-all, cvs-22, cvs-30 (since it's used in > both branches - the docs area is not branched) change docs/* to goto cvs-docs instead, don't need cross posting to the cvs-22, cvs-30 lists. >- a commit to ports/* would go to cvs-all and cvs-ports. > >Would this be useful? Too much? Too little? THis is different to what >we had before where commits to all branches were lumped in together. > I agree with Snob Art Genre, that the docs branch shouldn't go to the cvs-22, cvs-30 branches. If I scribe to the cvs-22 & cvs-30 lists, I don't want to read the same message twice from the docs branch (no list should have any cross posting, except for the cvs-all list). Scot 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?031501bde81f$5673c5e0$c3e0d9cf>