On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:24:59PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
> > on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
> > User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
> > not have a frequent need to examine history.
>
> True enough. However, how many "normal users" would you expect
> to be subscribing to the freebsd-current mailing list? If this is a
[...]
> So, you are either forced to change your definition of "normal
> users" to be people who would be subscribing to this list (and
> hopefully contributing in some way) and you have to acknowledge that
> change in definition, or you have to change the term that you use.
Perhaps I am missing your point, but in terms of deciding whether
Richard's proposal has merit, the fact that we're discussing this
on -CURRENT does not seem to me to be an issue.
In any case where somebody says "Y'all should do such-and-such"
without ponying up the code himself, we should be thinking about
whether the benefit to the users will "pay for" the time it takes
us to do it. If 10% of the people who run -CURRENT would find a
pruned-history repository useful, but only 10% of our user-base
runs -CURRENT, then it seems to me that the fact that it benefits
1% of the user population is the relevant figure.
(This is different from the usual case of only putting new features
in -CURRENT, because that code will eventually become -STABLE; the
people benefitting from Richard's proposal, according to the arguments
I've seen so far, are the ones who keep running -CURRENT, whatever
that happens to be at the moment.)
Does this address your criticism?
Matt
--
Matthew Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * UNIX is a lever for the
http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * intellect. -J.R. Mashey
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
