>>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. :-)

   Oh, and one more thing... It was ALWAYS forefront in our minds to get any
work that we had done committed as soon as possible, specifically to avoid
having to deal with conflicts that other people may make, to avoid bit-rot
in our working kernel trees, and to get the changes out to the masses for
maximal testing. I continue to feel strongly that this is the only way to
be successful in developing for FreeBSD.
   Now, I'm talking about changes to existing files in FreeBSD of course.
People that bring whole new arch ports to the kernel have a different
problem, but in those cases the overlap with existing files in FreeBSD is
very minimal, so longer delays to commit would not normally affect anyone


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