Date: 16 Mar 1996 16:40:32 -0600 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Andreas Klemm" <andreas@knobel.gun.de>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, "Peter Wemm" <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> Subject: Re(2): Commit messages Message-ID: <n1385128040.98738@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> wrote: > On 15 Mar 1996, Peter Wemm wrote: > > Well, if there was enough demand for it, I guess I could whip something > > up to do it... (It wouldn't be too hard, just a few lines of perl) > > > > Note that I personally dislike the idea, but I'm happy to go along with > > what people want. > > > IMHO, if we do this, then we're going to have problems > > with people that are running -stable not knowing what's in the pipeline in > > -current, and we'll start to see wheels being reinvented... > > You're right, people who want to get the source repository for -stable > should also receive -current to prevent this. > > The ones who want only the newest stable source have already the > possibility to sup -stable. I think that you are missing the point. Even if I use sup or CTM to get the sources, it is very useful to know what/why things were changed. The commit messages are the best documentation readily available. However, if I am not interested in -current, I hate to wade through all the changes that have absolutely no value to me in order to find the few that do apply to the -stable branch.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?n1385128040.98738>