Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 22:33:49 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: davidg@Root.COM, nate@sri.MT.net, hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <10485.834212029@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jun 1996 21:58:35 PDT." <199606080458.VAA05346@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think the token process is only necessary if you can't guarantee a > buildable tree at checkout (which is where I'd like to see the > problem attacked). The token process also only guarantess some But it probably won't be, so let's try to be realistic. You always want to rebuild the foundation and then go away in a huff when everyone insists on building on top of the old one.. :-) I don't think it's practical to contemplate the introduction of any system that doesn't sit easily on top of existing tools. Not at this time. The tokens aren't elegant, but they'll *work* and that's more than we have now! > *eventual* success, and can't be seperately tagged, apart from > checkout time, which makes it painful to build world. I think > this is too intermittent to leave the -stable repository mirror > of a snapshot of the -current repositopry working. I don't quite understand this argument. You start from success, e.g. a good tree. It stays a good tree until one day the token counter decides that what it's got today is _another_ success story and it creates the CTM deltas/does a supscan/whatever. You now get these changes, do another make world and tada! It works and continues to work until the next clean transition. What's so painful about that? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10485.834212029>