Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:30:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Knoll <knollm@lafcol.lafayette.edu> To: "Lachlan O'Dea" <lodea@angmar.mel.cybec.com.au> Cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Requisite steps for tracking -stable Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.980902012640.29223A-100000@lafcol.lafayette.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980902134829.22379B-100000@angmar.mel.cybec.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Atleast in my case, possibly others, reading -stable's list constantly, and sorting out the important stuff is not always possible. Ocationally, I'll leave for a few months, come back wanting to update, but building fails. If magic could occur, I'd wish cvsup to take my current source tree's version, compare it to the latest, and generate a list of critical changes that need to be done. I'm not that fimilar with this process, so, I don't know if there is a wizard out there capable of this magic. Mike On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Lachlan O'Dea wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > At 04:02 PM 9/1/98 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > >That won't happen, but I think we'll get people who make important > > >changes to note this in -stable from now on. > > > > With the amount of work that goes into FreeBSD and the shear size and > > complexity of it all, its a wonder it doesnt break more often! I recall > > the first time I discovered cvsup and began to contemplate the whole > > process, I was quite amazed by it all...imagine, downloading the deltas to > > the source code to an entire OS. I was pretty blown away by the fact that > > it worked. Considering that its done on a daily basis and out of the 365 > > days a year that changes get made, I think I can count on one hand the > > amount of times there were actual source code problems, and not many more > > times where there wasnt some form of 'heads up' posted somewhere about > > important changes. In short, it rocks! > > It certainly does. -stable is great for tracking things like security > fixes. Cvsup just brings them down along with everything else. Security > fixes on NT are an incredible pain: first install Service Pack 3, and then > install about a dozen "hot-fixes" (which you have to download > individually). Of course, if you later decide to install another OS > feature, you have to redo the whole process again, and it must be done > manually on each machine. FreeBSD is so much better it's just not funny. > > Just my 2c on tracking -stable: I think a good example of how it should > work was the removal of compatibility slice names. In that instance, > reading the commit logs probably wouldn't have resulted in a "heads up", > but anyone following the -stable list would have been fully aware of what > was happening. > > Of course, following the commit logs will reduce the chance that you'll be > surprised by something, but I've certainly never felt the need for it > (I've been tracking -stable for about a year now I think). I guess YMMV. > > =================================================================== > Lachlan O'Dea <mailto:lodea@angmar.mel.cybec.com.au> > FreeBSD rocks! <http://www.freebsd.org/>; > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.96.980902012640.29223A-100000>