Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:08:04 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606072008.OAA00297@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606071954.MAA03809@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199606071953.NAA00238@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199606071954.MAA03809@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > > > 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. No, the main arguement is that -stable is known to be -stable. -Current is almost always (95%) 'buildable', but it's not necessarily 'stable'. Current contains 'experimentable' (aka. known to be unstable) changes in it that stable doesn't (shouldn't) have. Heck, the tree would be buildable if the compiler wouldn't quit dumping core on you. :) As a matter of fact, the difference of the ability of 'stable' vs. 'current' regarding it's buildable state has *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* to do with CVS in *ANY SHAPE OR FORM*. 0, nada, zip, nothing! It is the policy of the FreeBSD project that *any* of the commits done to the tree guarantee that the tree stays 'buildable'. However, this is not strictly enforced (by the developers). However, with -stable more care is taken to keep the tree 'buildable' than is generally taken in -current, but that's due to the developers, not to the tools. The percentage of getting an 'unbuildable' tree due to the tools is noise compared to the liklihood of a developer not doing ensuring the tree is buildable. They aren't even in the same scope, with the developer being responsible for 'unbuildableness' 99.9% of the time. > 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. No it *can't*. Don't tell me it can, because the trees have *radically* diverted over the last 15 months to the point that CVS *CAN'T* merge branches. It's *NOT POSSIBLE* to automate the process. So, telling me otherwise is simply showing your ignorance of the *TRUE* problem, which is *COMPLETELY* and *UTTERLY* unrelated to CVS's ability or lack thereof of 'locking' the tree. Please don't make me have to use my caps-lock key this much anymore. You couldn't be more wrong about the issue. (Well, maybe you could, but it would be hard and require serious intention to actually be wrong.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606072008.OAA00297>