From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 21 02:47:27 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9405316A4CE; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:47:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from outbound0.sv.meer.net (outbound0.sv.meer.net [205.217.152.13]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6B243D4C; Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:47:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) iBL2lOwN069470; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:47:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from minion.local.neville-neil.com (pc1.oakwoodazabu1-unet.ocn.ne.jp [220.110.140.201]) by mail.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/meer) with ESMTP id iBL2lHgA096447; Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:47:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:46:53 +0900 Message-ID: From: gnn@FreeBSD.org To: Brooks Davis In-Reply-To: <20041220235736.GA6531@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20041220235736.GA6531@odin.ac.hmc.edu> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.5 Emacs/21.2 (powerpc-apple-darwin) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII cc: gnn@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Dingo and PerForce X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:47:27 -0000 At Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:57:36 -0800, Brooks Davis wrote: > > [1 ] > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 01:23:43PM +0900, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > > Howdy, > > > > For those who use PerForce and want to work on Dingo there is > > now a dingo branch, named "dingo". The dingo branch contains > > all of src, not just sys, as I suspect there are userland bits > > we'll want to do. I know I'll be doing userland things. > > What's the planned model for committing changes to the main dingo > branch? The IPv6 ipfw patches I'm working with are probably ready > for wider exposure. I would think that work being done on Dingo, once people think it's ready, should be shared. The usual comments of "don't break the build" apply. I also figure that folks doing dingo work are watching the dingo branch for changes, but it might be good, before a big change, to say something here on net@. > Also, for subsystems such as ip6fw that have no future, how > agressive should we be about nuking them in dingo. My guess is not > very because we don't want to hamper work that might need to modify > the old stuff to be committed when we aren't entierly sure how much > longer we'll be supporting the subsystem in cvs, but I think there's > some arugment for a more agressive approach to reduce the amount of > junk we have to look at. I like cleaning things up, but I'm really the greenhorn at committing so I hope others wil chime in. If it were my decision I would say that the Dingo branch should be the "cleanest" and then we could decide, when pushing to HEAD, how to handle that. Other thoughts? Later, George