Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:03:10 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: rkw@dataplex.net, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Food for thought Message-ID: <199609041803.LAA06857@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199609040425.NAA03285@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Sep 4, 96 01:55:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I disagree about the adequacy of "snap" releases. Jordan seems to get them > > out perhaps once a month. (I'm not faulting him) There are those who want > > to help check out things with much less latency, like maybe a day. The only > > problem is that they don't want to spend all of their time just getting the > > build to work. > > You are totally beyond reason, I'm afraid. You want stuff to be "stable", > but you expect the whole testing process to produce a lag of less than a > _day_? What sort of billion-dollar empire do you think FreeBSD inc. is?? Actually, Jordan has suggested 2 ways of achieving this. I've suggested 2 more -- one of which is a simple optimization of one of Jordan's, to reduce latency. Michael Hancock has suggested a fifth way, which is topologically equivalent to the other one of mine, without the consistency guarantees that a checkout does not occur while a checkin is in progress. This could be easily arbitrated by "hiding" the resource, either seperating it, or making it temporarily unavailable during the checkout-for-build. Process, one istituted, is self-sustaining. We do not need to build a coal-fired power-plant to enable us to use *any* of the processes suggested. 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?199609041803.LAA06857>