Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:13:52 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: eivind@yes.no, gibbs@plutotech.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-sys@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci if_tl.c if_tlreg.h Message-ID: <199805220518.XAA17997@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 May 1998 15:02:51 %2B1000." <199805220502.PAA03138@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> did. If this is really a step forward then I'd suggest that >>> a whole lot more needs changing if self-consistency is also your >>> goal (and I think it should be, especially where this kind of >>> stuff is concerned, since other driver writers will imitate it). > >It's a step backwards. We use cvs for version control here. But I don't feel that we should enforce this policy decision (has there been a policy decisions about #ifdef crap???) on third party vendors. It is one thing to say that all code committed to our tree is passed through unifdef first, and another to not provide an easy mechanism for identifying source code version to third party vendors. I want this for CAM, and so long as CAM remains an external component, I'm acting in the same role as a third party vendor that has no interest in maintaining two different code trees. -- Justin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805220518.XAA17997>