From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 1 04:57:01 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id EAA06407 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 04:57:01 -0800 Received: from dataplex.net (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA06393 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 04:56:53 -0800 Received: from [199.183.109.242] by dataplex.net with SMTP (MailShare 1.0b8); Wed, 1 Feb 1995 06:56:25 -0600 X-Sender: wacky@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 06:56:24 -0600 To: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: sup: Ok, I'm gonna do it. Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >And from this point it's off we go. If they run the sup interactively, >they can also be asked if they want to go build from the sources and >then we can do some sort of `make update' thing. That's the other thing >we still need to resolve, but we can get back to it later! :-) IMHO, there are two things that MUST be resolved. 1) The MAKE procedure must run without any manual kludges. I am working on that! Basically, you have to "bootstrap" your way to a set of tools that can build a system. Then you can go at it. 2) The second problem is that the system must, at least, compile from any release. What I would suggest is a bit more "engineering" in the process. Perhaps we need a two step commit process. Basically, developers commit to "wanna-be-current". Periodically take a snapshot of this and test to see if everything compiles. If not, it gets bounced! Things that pass the sieve go into "current". It might also be appropriate to have a differentiation between corrections to a release and additional functionality. I think that many users are more interested in patches to correct bugs in what they have rather than the latest and greatest might work code. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net