>>    Anyway, my point is that the Perforce repo itself isn't the problem. The
>> problem is that people are maintaining private patch sets for long periods
>> and making claims to the areas that their patches cover. Step-wise evolution
>> is the only way to go in this distributed development model and in order to
>> acheive this, private development trees need to be minimized as much as
>> possible.
>Some things are too impractically large to do incrementally and are an
>all-or-nothing thing.  I recall seeing your early VM commits which were huge,
>you had been working on for months, and were not incremental things.

   Actually, most VM system work that was done was developed over a period of
a few weeks at most, and in most cases were developed and tested in less than
a week. John Dyson had some stuff that brewed for a month or so and in fact
that caused some problems when I wanted to work in a similar area. In those
cases, John D and I collaborated very closely on the VM work, and often
emailed each other patches to integrate into each other's trees. ...but the
important point is that I don't believe that we ever told people not to work
on the VM system because it might conflict with our work. We told people not
to work on it because it was too delicate and too easily broken. :-)


David Greenman
Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org
President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com
President, Download Technologies, Inc. - http://www.downloadtech.com
Pave the road of life with opportunities.

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

Reply via email to