Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 22:17:40 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Status of -stable Message-ID: <199606080417.WAA02540@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606080240.TAA12036@Root.COM> References: <17488.834093152@time.cdrom.com> <199606080240.TAA12036@Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Greenman writes: > I really don't think that using a different source control system > is going to make any difference. The problem we're faced with is with > the source trees diverging too quickly. No matter what source control > system we use, it's still not going to be able to resolve include-file > dependencies, variable name/type changes, and miscellaneous > architectural changes that make merging impossible. I agree *totally*. Although I agree that CVS has it's problem, I don't believe that merging two very different trees is something it or any other SCM tool can deal with well. > This is a problem with trying to keep a moldy source tree "in sync" > with things happening in -current. It's possible to manage for about > the first 3 months, but when the time approaches 1 year (like it is > now), it becomes a bloody nightmare. Agreed. And, for the record I didn't mean to imply that you weren't willing to do this initially, but that you aren't willing to do this anymore (at least that what Jordan stated, and I took as truth.) In any case I'll quit speaking for you, and leave it that I'm willing to do some of the integration work simply because -stable is something that *I* feel is a good thing, therefore I'm willing to bring in those patches which I feel are both stable and contribute to making the stable branch better. However, having said that I'll also say that if I don't *completely* understand a fix or have no personal need for this patch I probably won't take the time to do any merging of patches unless someone makes it real easy for me. I'm not sure what -stable will become after this discussion, but I'd like to see it's 'idea' continued. Heck, I'm almost willing to say freeze -current *TODAY* for a couple weeks as it appears the VM stuff is looking good and cut a new 'stable' branch today. 'RELENG_2_1_0' is almost at it's end anyway, and this way we could have another 'stable' branch that will be ready for general consumption as soon as 2.1.5 goes out the door. (To this end I upgraded one of my -stable boxes to a -current kernel today, and will be upgrading the user-land stuff soon.) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606080417.WAA02540>