Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:19:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Paul Traina <pst@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-user@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcpdump addrtoname.c print-isoclns.c Message-ID: <199608200019.SAA18527@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199608200014.IAA21614@spinner.DIALix.COM> References: <199608192159.PAA17988@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199608200014.IAA21614@spinner.DIALix.COM>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > I thought the idea of doing the 'contrib' thing was that we were > > supposed to create 'patches' to the sources, rather than patching the > > sources directly. If we patch the sources directly, were in the *exact* > > same boat we were in except the sources live in src/contrib. > > It would be a reasonable assumption that everybody's misunderstood at > least something, especially since it's new and not much uses it yet. > > The policy.sgml doc in the handbook that was generated from what was > proposed on the lists says that the 3rd party code goes on the vendor > branch and any freebsd specific changes go on the local branch, and that > the freebsd changes should be kept as small as practical. So how is this any different from the previos behavior of doing vendor branches inside the tree? Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608200019.SAA18527>