Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:26:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Public Access to Perforce? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408181420070.19515-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040818110443.55952A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Robert Watson wrote: > One of our hopes was to find a model that has some of the benefits of a > "contrib" model, wherein only more stable/discrete change sets go into > CVS, but without the more painful aspects of CVS vendor branches or the > notion of the "primary" copy being maintained elsewhere. Don't forget the fact that anyone who tracks our CVS trees via cvsup also winds up with a copy of all that history, forever, on their hard drive. If the 'history' were to expand to cover all the intermediate and rejected steps in some of these sub-projects, we would add repo bloat (and resulting server and download times) for very little gain. Just because something gets merged into -current doesn't mean that the changes have to stand, either: there is plenty of evidence that things get critically reviewed and revised, no matter what the source. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0408181420070.19515-100000>