From owner-freebsd-current Fri Mar 15 12:41: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.rpi.edu (mail.rpi.edu [128.113.22.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF15437B400; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:40:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.acs.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by mail.rpi.edu (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g2FKeF4B146198; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:40:15 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:40:14 -0500 To: Robert Watson , Nate Williams From: Garance A Drosihn Subject: Re: CVS Issues with branch.. Was: Re: HEADS UP: Be nice to -CURRENT ( "1 week Feature Slush" ) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, re@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.3 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 2:17 PM -0500 3/15/02, Robert Watson wrote: >My feeling is that at this point, we probably should just use >Perforce due to limitations in CVS. This seems fine to me. I am uneasy about perforce in cases where someone is developing something which is *meant* to be merged back into the main branch, and anyone interested in that change is told "just check the P4 repository". That is not what is happening here. I would not *push* to have this done in P4, but I certainly do not mind if the RE team wants to handle it that way. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message