From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Jun 7 21:17:34 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA03367 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA03330; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA05233; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:11:17 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199606080411.VAA05233@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 21:11:16 -0700 (MST) Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Michael Hancock" at Jun 8, 96 11:30:20 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Terry proposes a set of tools to help enforce the policy of always having > ^^^^^^ > > > a buildable tree. Would this make the commit process too cumbersome? > > > > Because these tools are unattainable. Saying 'it would be nice if we > > could guarantee that the tree was always buildable' is like saying 'it > > would be nice if everyone liked everyone'. It's a wonderful goal, but > > it's unattainable given the current resources. > > I said help not guarantee. The tools would help resolve reads while > commits are being done. Multiple reader/single writer locks are a cheap > effective way to do this. Exactly. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.