From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 3 18:13:26 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA12546 for current-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA12537 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id BAA07900; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:11:54 GMT Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 10:11:54 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Terry Lambert cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , rkw@dataplex.net, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure In-Reply-To: <199609031902.MAA04818@phaeton.artisoft.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > At Novell, using CVS with a reader/writer lock front end, we were > able to keep a project with 18+ engineers hacking on it 8-12 hours > a day buildable for every night but 5 for a period of 8 months. > Further, we did it on three machine architectures. With fulltime engineers in how many time zones? I previously thought this was a good idea when I first started supping current when current was going through a particularly unstable period. It isn't a good fit. FreeBSD which has volunteers working in multiple timezones. The current model is a good fit for this situation. The problem is that there isn't a good alternative to current for people who expect a buildable tree. The focus should be put on an automated way of providing a buildable tree and advertising it as the tree that most people should be downloading. Regards, Mike Hancock