Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:50:00 -0500 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <v02140b02ae53a4a2fce7@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> writes: >I think you give too much 'power' to the 'powers that be'. You're >completely free to do anything you want. But, *FIRST* of all show a >working prototype and *THEN* expect to be heralded as the hero. > >Put the cart before the horse, not the other way around. Not in this case. This involves a policy change for the distribution of FreeBSD. THere is no way that I can modify the distribution channels without the "blessing" of the 'core'. What I propose is to have three tiers of distribution. At the top, we have those who either have direct access to the master tree or are willing to live with CVSup'ed images taken from it. At the next level, we have frequent snapshots of the tree. These are clocked by the ctm-cvs generator (every 6 hours, I believe). I would have the sup mirrors use this as their distributable product. The third level would be the "current" (or as someone said, "recent") tree. It would also be synced to the above mentioned distributions. However, the distribution can be delayed or skipped until some verfication of the "buildability" has been established. Initially, we can simply ignore "buildability" and release the updates on arrival. Later, we can put a release filter into the mechanism. The entire process is implemented with existing and tested components. I have now done as much as I reasonably can do without authorization to actually implement the scheme. Since this was previously presented along with the offer to coordinate the effort and has been rejected without explanation, I again present it as evidence supporting my attitude and refuting yours. I cannot do "what I want". Neither can I demonstrate a working modification to the make system without first removing a bunch of inappropriate absolute file references. But I cannot get anyone to agree to make those changes until I demonstrate that it all works. So which is the chicken and which is the egg in this case?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v02140b02ae53a4a2fce7>