Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 12:33:52 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable Users <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD current users <FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960608123152.26929A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <16852.834188423@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > doing a *ton* of work in both -stable and -current. However, it's a > > *LOT* of work. However, I don't think this has anything to do with CVS, > > but has to do with the diverging of the trees. P3 may make it easier to > > do as far as resources, but the actual work of 'merging' in changes to > > both won't be any easier. Building the patches is the hard work IMHO, > > I think you're forgetting the problem with cvs where: > > 1. You make a change in -release. > 2. You merge it into -stable. > 3. You make another change in -release. Sorry if I am misunderstanding something, but shouldn't the change have been made in -stable and not in -release? Sander > 4. You go to do another merge into -stable and wind up with a whole *mess* > of conflicts. `cvs update -j' is NOT a decent merge tool! > > Jordan >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960608123152.26929A-100000>