Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 8 Jun 1996 00:18:47 -0600
From:      Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
To:        Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Cc:        nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: The -stable problem: my view
Message-ID:  <199606080618.AAA03027@rocky.sri.MT.net>
In-Reply-To: <199606080603.XAA05574@phaeton.artisoft.com>
References:  <199606080535.XAA02830@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199606080603.XAA05574@phaeton.artisoft.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes:
> > > This *is* an issue of removing the potential for developer checkin
> > > conflict, so that the only margin for error is that of the developer
> > > who disobeys protocol.
> > 
> > But we don't have a problem with checkin conflict.  It's simply a
> > non-problem.  If it ain't broke, don't spend alot of time fixing it.
> > 
> > How many times do I have to say this?
> 
> Until -current builds with no errors that can't be traced to a policy
> violation (and a specific violator) for a period of one month.

I can go through the commit logs and show you that this is the case for
over 95% of the cases, and I can point to the *exact* person responsible
for it in every case.  The remaining 4.5% of the cases are where things
get a bit fuzzy.  These are when the system can't be built because the
tree isn't broken but the actual 'implementation' is in a state that the
nothing works you really can't place blame on anyone.  The recent VM
changes made the tree unbuildable if you actually used the current build
system, or when the bootstrap process isn't quite up to snuff.  Once you
get the system bootstrapped it'll build, but the process of getting it
to a buildable state requires a bit of hackery.

> If "committer #1" checks in changes to modules A, B, C, and Q,
> and "committer #2" cheks in changes to modules X, Y, Z, and Q,
> and there is a cumulative conflict, who is at fault if their
> access was not serialized?
> 
> Answer: the tools.

Problem:  99.9% of the time no-one steps on anyone else's code.  So
again this is a NON-ISSUE.

This simply *DOESN'T* happen Terry.  No matter how many times I say it,
you refuse to believe yet you've *NEVER* committed code to tree nor
*EVER* seen a problem with multiple commits to the *EXACT* same code
causing problems in recent history.

Any more attempts to spread FUD will be emailed *only* to you.  You're
*wrong*, *wrong*, *wrong* about what is the problem.  Again, you keep
bringing up non-problems and pointing to solutions to them.  Solutions
to non-problems are useless.


Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606080618.AAA03027>