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