On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 10:48:53AM +0100, Hellmuth Michaelis wrote:
> Not taking into account (good) technical reasons, i am quite a bit
> concerned about the increasing tendency to a) use "private" repositories
> instead of the one and only repository every committer is able to see and
> use and b) and/or use other version control systems instead of the one
> and only every committer is able to use.
Is this for the use of Perforce in this DP snapshot, or in general?
Private repositories have been used by developers forever. I have
several toolchain repos that I don't share. JDP's FAQ on how to commit
to your own branch and still use CVSup to update your repo is a FAQ for a
My earlier concerns about the use of Perforce were when a developers
expected other developers to use Perforce for _shared_ development. Or
that tried to claim that their code was "published" if it was in the
Perforce depot on Freefall.
In this use of Perforce for a -CURRENT snapshot; I don't see how people
can bitch and bitch about it. No committer or developer has EVER had CVS
"access" or "sight" of the source used in previous snapshot CDROMs. So
people are loosing nothing. Perforce is just a tool to assist Murray and
Co. in making this snapshot CD. As much as mkiosfs and cdrecord. You've
never known which versions of those tools were used before -- and some
versions of mkiosfs have annoying bugs in the resulting ISO. This has
not bothered people before.
People can already see the commits that are going on in -CURRENT up to
15-March-2002 -- which is when the source was "checked out" and tagged in
The other reason to NOT do this in the CVS repository is that it will
help deemphasize that the DP is NOT a RELEASE. People should not be
CVSup'ing hoping to get just that point in time, they should not be
expecting a "RELENG_5_DP1" branch where security and serious bug fixes
are applied like the "RELENG_4_5" branch.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message