From owner-freebsd-current Sat Feb 21 03:01:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA06386 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:01:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA06381 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:01:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA15500; Sat, 21 Feb 1998 05:01:22 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19980221143803.31160@freebie.lemis.com> References: <23061.888029515@time.cdrom.com>; from Jordan K. Hubbard on Fri, Feb 20, 1998 at 06:51:55PM -0800 <199802210245.NAA06439@cimlogic.com.au> <23061.888029515@time.cdrom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 05:00:24 -0600 To: Greg Lehey From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: More breakage in -current as a result of header frobbing. Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , current@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:08 PM -0600 2/20/98, Greg Lehey wrote: >On Fri, 20 February 1998 at 18:51:55 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >>> Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >>>> Yeah, no kidding. Since nobody seems to be build testing their >>>> changes anymore I guess I'll just... >There's a delicate balance here: > >- If people commit only perfect code, the result is -STABLE, not > -CURRENT. While that doesn't sound bad in itself, it means > significant delays to any commit. > >- If people commit only code which breaks a 'make world', nobody will > ever get -CURRENT installed. Even if it only happens 50% of the > time, it will frustate a large number of users to the point where > they can't be bothered any more. > >The problem with both of these extremes... >You could say "John should test his changes better before commiting >them". But that's not always possible. The bugs don't break things >for him. -CURRENT's there exactly for that. Here, I disagree. "Jane" may not be able to test ALL cases. However, she SHOULD have already tested at least one. If the code does not, at the least, compile and run in the "generic" case, it is IMHO, not ready for "-current". The -CURRENT tree is where it gets a wider testing audience. By the time that it goes to -STABLE, it SHOULD have been tested on a wide range of systems The rationale for putting everything into the head of "-current" so quickly is that to do otherwise would slow down the speed of the developers. However, I sometimes question if that speed is forward motion or just "running in circles". Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message