From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 7 23:22:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id XAA15183 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA15175; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 23:22:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606080622.XAA15175@freefall.freebsd.org> To: Terry Lambert cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), michaelh@cet.co.jp, hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:03:59 PDT." <199606080603.XAA05574@phaeton.artisoft.com> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:22:48 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> But we don't have a problem with checkin conflict. It's simply a >> non-problem. If it ain't broke, don't spend alot of time fixing it. >> >> How many times do I have to say this? > >Until -current builds with no errors that can't be traced to a policy >violation (and a specific violator) for a period of one month. Policy violoations != concurrent checkin conflicts. >If "committer #1" checks in changes to modules A, B, C, and Q, >and "committer #2" cheks in changes to modules X, Y, Z, and Q, >and there is a cumulative conflict, who is at fault if their >access was not serialized? > >Answer: the tools. This just doesn't happen in this project. The problem we have to deal with is maintaining a branch that has diverged to such an extent from the main line as to be difficult to maintain. Lets stay focused on the problem we face now instead of a problem we may never face. > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org >--- >Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present >or previous employers. -- Justin T. Gibbs =========================================== FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations ===========================================