Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:08:49 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960608104358.14546A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199606072207.QAA00896@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Nate Williams wrote: > Yes, but only if the developer isn't paying attention. This has > happened less times than I can count on two hands. Considering that > we're probably approaching hundreds of thousands of commits since we've > started, I'd say we're doing pretty well and that nothing needs to > change as far as that part of commit process goes. > I started supping current 2 weeks ago and during this time I saw configuration mistakes go into the tree. I can understand programming bugs, but a mistakes in configuration management that prevent successful builds are a little annoying. How many people does this affect these days? Terry proposes a set of tools to help enforce the policy of always having a buildable tree. Would this make the commit process too cumbersome? -mh
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.93.960608104358.14546A-100000>