From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 7 19:09:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA19007 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA18965; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.7.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id LAA14858; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:08:49 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 11:08:49 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Nate Williams cc: Terry Lambert , hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view In-Reply-To: <199606072207.QAA00896@rocky.sri.MT.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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