Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:13:50 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" <jamil@acroal.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OS Ports Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971210201013.3522b-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971210151952.19030I-100000@paladio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Jason Evans wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect wrote: > > Wouldn't porting -stable first be a better project, after all you want a > > quality product and that is what stable is. If it was me I would start > > there, cvsup to RELENG_22 and take a crack at it. > > Well, it would be easier, but then comes the problem of moving the port to > current once it works. That would probably be as bad a doing the port in > the first place. From what I understand, FreeBSD 1.1 was ported to SPARC > way back, but it never got merged back in to the development tree. I'm > guessing it was because of something like this. I don't want to pour > blood, sweat, and tears into this port, and then never have it integrated > into current. That would almost be worse than never starting in the first > place. > > I've still got a question about maintaining a separate tree that I haven't > found a reasonable answer to: > > Say I grab current, and stay synched with it, but I start making changes > to my local tree. As time goes on, I make more and more changes, while my > tree still tracks current. At some point, aren't my changes going to > cause conflicts that make it a losing battle to keep my own tree? Say in > file foo.c George changes lines 10-20 in the main tree, and I change lines > 15-20. When I sync my tree with freebsd.org, there will be a conflict. If > I manually resolve this conflict, will I have to deal with it repeatedly > every time I sync with the main tree? > > Even if I only have to resolve the conflict once, tracking current can't > be automatic, can it? It seems to me that I'd have to manually resolve > conflicts. Well, cvs isn't as braindead as all that ... if the differences detected during a merge don't conflict, then the merge is automatic (although cvs warns you it's merging). I agree on one point, tho, you want current as a target, not stable. Your first effort is going to be unstable, no matter if you were the guru-god coder of all time (no one's that good, except in their dreams). Basing it on an older, more stable version of FreeBSD just means that your first effort will be based upon an older version, and won't have too much effect on it's stability. Your own alpha/beta/gamma testing will really determine that, and the efforts of all who follow the work you lead. > > Jason > > P.S. Please excuse what is likely incorrect terminology for tree > synchronization and conflict resolution. What are the proper terms? > > Jason Evans > Email: [jasone@canonware.com] > Home phone: [(650) 856-8204] > Quote: ["Invention is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" - Thomas Edison] > > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971210201013.3522b-100000>