Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:54:06 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606071954.MAA03809@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199606071953.NAA00238@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 7, 96 01:53:25 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Try using it _seriously_ someday and no explanation will be necessary. > > > Suffice it to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the > > > documentation. > > > > The problem with CVS is access protocol. > > No, the problem is that CVS doesn't handle diverging source trees very > well. The access to the tree is *completely* and *utterly* irrelevant > to the problems at hand, and just because you want it changed doesn't > mean you should get on your soapbox and call for it's implentation. > > Stick the to *problem* that's being discussed, not one that you (and > only you) consider to be a real problem with CVS. > > You're tryin to break the model that CVS was designed for, and this part > of the model is *NOT* one of the problems FreeBSD is facing now. Nate: you're wrong. The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that -stable is known to be buildable. If -current were known to be buildable, it would support the argument for getting rid of -stable. CVS can reconcile source trees (merge branch tags) just fine... we did that sort of thing at Novell with a CVS version of three years ago, no problems. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606071954.MAA03809>