Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 16:47:59 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Cc: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Source Tree Ettiquite (was Re: sup: Ok, I'm gonna do it.) Message-ID: <9502022348.AA15270@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <9502022344.AA22127@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Feb 2, 95 06:44:02 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Programmers working on pieces of the whole only check out the parts > > they are going to work on from a remotely accessed tree. > > > How do you handle this now? > > I sup the entire source tree on my machine, implement and test my > changes, and commit them on freefall. I NEED to have the entire > source tree on my box anyway, so I might as well make sure it's > up-to-date. Wouldn't you prefer that when the SUP got done, you could successfully compile intead of dealing with someone elses ugly baby? It would seem to me that you'd be the strongest advocate *for* setting up what can and can't go into the CVS tree, and how it can be done to ensure the SUP and snapshot sources (probably the same tree) were usable for a developer. I can see where people would not be able to afford the space for a copy of the CVS tree (it *ought* to be "CVS tree_s_"). I was *never*, *ever* advocating that, or that running CTM should be a requirement! Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502022348.AA15270>