On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 12:56:42AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > It seems to me that, at worst, this is being done to "prove > to the heathens" that use of Perforce is a bad idea. It > certainly is, if history is going to be lost, but that's not > a result of the tool, here, it's a result of intention. > > At best, Perforce is being used because the release engineers > have less power over branching in the CVS repository than the > core team *should* be loaning them.
So you would like to screw the project just out of principle? I know you know enough about CVS to know the limitations that laying down this tag would have on the ability to do repository surgery. > Either way, it's bad news when it won't be possible to > reproduce an official code cut -- even if it's not a > release -- from the repository. > > What is a repository good for, if you can't recover your > history from it? The way Linux is developed, they release > code that's not recoverable from a repository, ony from > the release materials themselves. They have no repository > because they *intentionally* have no perception of history. Thanks for your input. If this will be the result of DP snapshots, you've now convinced me to strongly object to them. I had reservations about us doing such an "official" snapshot and the impact it has on the CVS repo and developer code slush restrictions. Next time I will voice them. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
