In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
rt Watson writes:

>Question 1: How should the presence of on-going work in an external
>repository be announced to the broader community?

On the web-page and the regular status emails
generated from the contents of that web-page.

>Question 2: How should the status of on-going work be announced to the
>broader community?
>Suggestion: Bi-monthly developer status report
>Suggestion: Status web page for the project
>Suggestion: Regular status reports on work to relevant mailing lists

All of the above with a s/Regular/As warranted/ on the third line.

>Question 3: How should the results of the on-going work be made available
>to the broader community?
>Suggestion: cvsup10 export of the Perforce tree
>Suggestion: patchsets sent to appropriate mailing lists with status
>Suggestion: patchsets generated automatically and posted to the mailing
>            list

Whichever fits the particular project but it would be wonderful if
a patch file for all projects could be accessed via the web-page.

>Question 4: How agressively should on-going work be pushed back into the
>base tree?
>Suggestion: For work requiring large source tree sweeps, API changes, etc,
>            only when the work is ready to commit.

Panic: recursion: "commit only when ready to commit"

Doesn't this one hinge on the stability/compilability goal of current
and only that ?

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

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

Reply via email to