From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 10 01:27:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id BAA29884 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:27:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id BAA29879 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:27:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id KAA03729 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:27:33 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id KAA19306 for chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:27:32 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.2/8.6.9) id KAA29131 for chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:04:36 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199612100904.KAA29131@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: siguing into current from a random version To: chat@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:04:36 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199612100348.UAA03319@phaeton.artisoft.com> from Terry Lambert at "Dec 9, 96 08:48:49 pm" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Terry Lambert wrote: > You don't commit until you compile successfully. I don't understand > where you think "refresh the CVS tree after a commit" comes into it > at all. Either this or that: > > Neither is compiling everything on freefall (or thud) an option. > > Everything had to remain locked for all those hours -- that's > > unacceptable. is IMHO required for: > It has to be locked over an update/build/commit. ^^^^^ Or how would you build it? > Unless what you guys have been claiming about people only > rarely working on the same files is false, and you're picking now > to admit it for some reason. We haven't claimed this, we've only claimed that hasn't caused us serious problems. That's more than just a difference in wording. I remember occasions where even three of us have been fixing the same problem in the same files in (basically) the same way, independently of each other. I _don't_ remember this being the reason for a tree breakage however. The reasons for this have always been ``human failing''. > That really depends on if your "product" is a source tree, doesn't it? Maybe. Ours isn't. :-) Our ``product'' are releases. > Please pick one viewpoint to argue from, and see it through, instead > of changing viewpoints when its convenient (to "better put down Terry's > suggestions, and logic be damned"). I don't wanna ``put down your suggestions'', i'm only telling you that we aren't suffering the desease you're giving us your medicine for. :) So i fear the costs of your medicine (somebody has to implement it, plus the costs discussed above) for just an ``you could perhaps be caught by this desease some day'' occasion. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)