> > 
> > What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that 
> > the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ?
> > 
> > This sounds odd at first glance, but it means that others are forced 
> > to MFC into the smp branch - if they don't they lose.
> > 
> > Anybody that's not confident to be able to merge into the smp branch 
> > will simply be in the same position - merge or hold off.  They'd also 
> > be just as likely to break the smp work with their commits as if the 
> > smp work was done in HEAD.
> > 
>  Isn't this the same thing as breaking the head and keeping every thing
> else (that is the pre-broken 5.0) on a branch...
>  Just sorta rotating the tree a little...
>  And, isn't this the same idea as -stable?
>  If that's all true - I'd suggest that those who really want stability
> might be better served with the -stable branch for the interim.  If you
> need a totally-brand-new-feature, then MFC that to -stable and get 
> it there...
>  I suppose I can sum this up with "isn't this already handled?"

True, if you run current you've gotta be able to cope with the blood. 
However, I don't think it's a good idea to have a single project 
prevent a load of other developers from doing their bits - not if it 
can be helped.

I'm sure SMP is not the only code in -current that's not ready for 
-stable yet.

>       - Dave Rivers -
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]                         Work: (919) 676-0847
> Get your mainframe (370) `C' compiler at http://www.dignus.com

Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                        <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>                   <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to