From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jun 8 02:27:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA25227 for current-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 02:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA25087; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 02:27:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27176; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 12:33:53 +0300 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 12:33:52 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Nate Williams , FreeBSD Hackers , FreeBSD Stable Users , FreeBSD current users Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view In-Reply-To: <16852.834188423@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > doing a *ton* of work in both -stable and -current. However, it's a > > *LOT* of work. However, I don't think this has anything to do with CVS, > > but has to do with the diverging of the trees. P3 may make it easier to > > do as far as resources, but the actual work of 'merging' in changes to > > both won't be any easier. Building the patches is the hard work IMHO, > > I think you're forgetting the problem with cvs where: > > 1. You make a change in -release. > 2. You merge it into -stable. > 3. You make another change in -release. Sorry if I am misunderstanding something, but shouldn't the change have been made in -stable and not in -release? Sander > 4. You go to do another merge into -stable and wind up with a whole *mess* > of conflicts. `cvs update -j' is NOT a decent merge tool! > > Jordan >