Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:52:40 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fallout from the CVS discussion Message-ID: <50578D98.7080902@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <99E30CDE-AC9D-4615-8830-5EC511EE1BBB@bsdimp.com> References: <CAF6rxg=qVUHe7tc9_AXgRdUtkoHOrixwNw-GsN7C7_r0FR990A@mail.gmail.com> <20120916053523.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAF6rxg=mm9OeVDX-dYC=FwnAZ-6pGjcRad=Gm9-mLx3QiPtqVQ@mail.gmail.com> <51B48339-D1FA-49CD-B582-1C58855B024E@bsdimp.com> <50563EA6.1050908@FreeBSD.org> <99E30CDE-AC9D-4615-8830-5EC511EE1BBB@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/16/2012 14:45, Warner Losh wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On 09/16/2012 09:03, Warner Losh wrote:
>>> One of the things we are trying to move towards is that current can be cut into a release branch on short notice. We need to keep it as close to production ready as possible. People
>>
>> I find your response here interesting Warner, given that when I have
>> opposed what I felt were too-drastic changes in HEAD (such as removing
>> sysinstall before a post-install configuration solution was ready) your
>> response has been, "It's HEAD, we can break things ... let's see what
>> happens!"
>
> sysinstall replacement was a different discussion, with differing technical criteria.
Right... in the sysinstall case we had a mainline system tool that was
actively being used, with no replacement in sight. It should not have
been removed until we had a viable replacement in the base.
In the CVS case we have something that was _formerly_ in a similar
category, but is not any longer.
> Also, using it against me now for consistency likely isn't so good. I think we moved too quickly, in retrospect, on that. That experience suggests we be more cautious in the future, including for things like this.
Careful! You're coming dangerously close to saying I was right about
something. :)
>> Now that you are the one opposed to the change, we need to
>> keep HEAD "close to production ready."
>
> Look at bz's push in this area.
Yes, I think it's awesome that someone else has finally taken up the
"plz 2 stop brking teh head, kplztks" banner. Too bad it's still being
ignored.
> Also, I'm not opposed to this change, just opposed to this change today, as explained elsewhere.
Doing it now has a lot of benefits, but ...
>> There is a compromise solution here that I have been hesitant to offer
>> because I was really hoping that sanity would prevail. But why not
>> switch the default MK_CVS knob over to "no" now? That will give us an
>> opportunity to see if there really will be any fallout, and easily fix
>> it if there is.
>
> I believe that's already been done.
It isn't now, but it sounds to me like you're saying that you're not
opposed to doing so?
Eitan, if you're listening, I'd strike while the iron is hot. :)
Doug
--
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50578D98.7080902>