From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 1 11:03:07 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id LAA02150 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:03:07 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id LAA02144 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:03:05 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA06926; Wed, 1 Feb 95 10:08:30 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9502011708.AA06926@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: sup: Ok, I'm gonna do it. To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 10:08:30 MST Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Feb 1, 95 06:56:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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". Topologically equivalent to: lock w commit resolve conflicts check out build unlock Except the second approach doesn't require as much local disk. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.