From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 10 12:48:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA18650 for current-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:48:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA18636; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA04327; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:43:05 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199705101943.MAA04327@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: A 3.0-current SNAP building machine has been found! To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:43:05 -0700 (MST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, announce@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <18077.863238129@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at May 9, 97 09:22:09 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I suppose that Terry will now suggest some sort of voting system and I > can't even say that it's such a bad idea (just so long as I don't have > to write the vote collection and tabulation software :-). > > Comments? I was actually against using "voting"; I prefer forcing developers to verify that compiles work and the resulting code does not trivially fail prior to it being committed. That way the tree would always work; the best you can get out of "voting" is "provided with high confidence that it might work". Anyway, my comments. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.