Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 6:55 PM -0800 2/26/02, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > (1) The timeout begins when contention occurs, of the lock has been
> >> declared. This means that if you seriously intend to do some work,
> >> you can say "I'm going to do the work", but you don't risk losing the
> >> lock until someone comes to you and says "Hey did you ever...".
> >Locks shouldn't be unilateral and they shouldn't last more that the
> >amount of time that it takes to import a change and get it stable.
> >i.e. maybe a week or so at most. Someone used KSE-II as an example..
> >They said I had a 2 month lock (??) I don't know where they got that
> >idea from.. I had a vague concensus that maybe things may be broken
> >for a DAY OR TWO. while the commit was happenning. I the end it was
> >about right.
> That would be me...
> I meant "lock" in the sense of expecting no one to make any major
> changes in the same area of code. I seem to remember you asking for
> such a "lock" (to use the term loosely) in July, and the KSE work
> going in around August or so. My memory is admittedly vague. My
> point was you explicitly asked for permission to go ahead with that
> work, even though (at the time) we were shooting for a release date
> in November.
> I don't mean the period of time that -current was actually unstable,
> but the amount of time that other developers were asked to stay away
> from a major section of code.
I never asked for that..
> Garance Alistair Drosehn = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message