From owner-freebsd-current Sun Sep 27 08:50:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10724 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 08:50:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from jmb@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA10717; Sun, 27 Sep 1998 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jmb) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" Message-Id: <199809271550.IAA10717@hub.freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/3.0-19980923-BETA/ In-Reply-To: from Richard Wackerbarth at "Sep 26, 98 09:30:16 pm" To: rkw@Dataplex.NET (Richard Wackerbarth) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1998 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Cc: jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > At 7:33 PM -0500 9/26/98, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > >Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > >> > cvs-30 (all commits related to 3.0 (aka -current, -beta, -stable etc) > >> > cvs-22 (all commits related to 2.2.x (aka 2.2-stable etc) > >> > >> I'd prefer cvs-current and cvs-stable to numbered ones or we'll have > >> to rename lists at the roll-over rather than simply transitioning the > >> topics of discussion accordingly. > > > > cvs-stable and cvs-current do not exist at this time. > > we currently break out the lists per the source tree > > structure...and stable vs current do not have their > > own source trees. > > > > let see if resurrecting the myriad cvs- lists we have > > today doesnt solve the problem. > > I think you may be missing the point. with the impending release of 3.0 the number of commit messages has skyrocketed. the sheer volume is overwhelming a number of people. this is a temporary situation. once the volume settles down and people will be able to handle the quantity of mail. one way of deceasing the volume is to split it into several streams, in place of one stream. we currently do the split according to the source tree. we could do the split in other ways....but i dont know the cvs code, have never modified and will not "volunteer" someone else to do so. uncommenting code in cvs that was recently commented out is another matter entirely. if you want a stable/current split, please send patches and get someone who knows that code to review the patches. people have a lot to do right now, this is not the first priority. doesnt mean it wont happen, just means it wont happen first. i fully expect that 3.0 will be released before someone has time to create the current/stable split in the stream of cvs commit email messages. jmb > > If I am tracking the x.x branch, I really don't care about the changes > to "current". Similarly, someone who is attempting to help beta-test > the upcoming release doesn't care about the items which are still being > ported back into 2.2. They only care about the changes to the system > that they are attempting to run. > > For all practical purposes of the people who do not wish to get ALL the > commit messages, it would be simpler if FreeBSD-2 and FreeBSD-3 were > entirely separate cvs trees. The cry is that the commit messages be > distributed as if they were. > > Richard Wackerbarth > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message