Re: iso target in release/Makefile

2001-08-20 Thread Jordan Hubbard

From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: iso target in release/Makefile
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:06:34 -0700

> It is part of a patch set I sent you for review.

And that patch looks good - please commit it and then merge the
resulting changes into RELENG_4 if you get the chance.  Thanks!

- Jordan

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



Re: iso target in release/Makefile

2001-08-20 Thread David O'Brien

On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 01:15:20PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > You didn't MFC the iso.1 target.  We are all building releases on
> > RELENG_4 right now :-) (-current releases have been broken for quite a
> > while).  Thus my patch was developed on RELENG_4 and only committed to
> > current so I could as the RE about MFC'ing it.
> 
> Uh, no offense, but that explanation makes absolutely NO sense
> whatsoever!  If you'd developed something independently in RELENG_4
> and only considered it applicable to that branch, then it would NOT go
> into -current for obvious reasons, especially if it was a duplication
> of something already there.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  I've asked you about putting
stuff into RELENG_4 before and you said to put it in -current and then
immediately MFC it so people wouldn't complain that it didn't go thru
current.  (I also didn't consider it applicable only to that branch)


> What you'd do instead is either commit it
> only to RELENG_4 (and there is some precedent for that) or you'd ask
> for an MFC of the feature which was already in -current.

I didn't know about the feature in current (nor did those on the Alpha
list that were asking how to make ISOs).

> Please back this out, it's ugly and wrong.

It is part of a patch set I sent you for review.

-- 
-- David  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

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



Re: iso target in release/Makefile

2001-08-20 Thread Jordan Hubbard

From: "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: iso target in release/Makefile
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:43:16 -0700

> You didn't MFC the iso.1 target.  We are all building releases on
> RELENG_4 right now :-) (-current releases have been broken for quite a
> while).  Thus my patch was developed on RELENG_4 and only committed to
> current so I could as the RE about MFC'ing it.

Uh, no offense, but that explanation makes absolutely NO sense
whatsoever!  If you'd developed something independently in RELENG_4
and only considered it applicable to that branch, then it would NOT go
into -current for obvious reasons, especially if it was a duplication
of something already there.  What you'd do instead is either commit it
only to RELENG_4 (and there is some precedent for that) or you'd ask
for an MFC of the feature which was already in -current.

Please back this out, it's ugly and wrong.  Thanks!  I'll be happy
to MFC the pre-existing stuff if such is wanted.

- Jordan

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



Re: iso target in release/Makefile

2001-08-20 Thread David O'Brien

On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 11:51:31PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> H.  I'm not sure why this reinvents a lot of the "wheel" in the
> already existing iso.1 target.  Could you explain its purpose a little
> better as well as why you didn't simply conditionalize the iso.1
> target in some way if it didn't currently suit?

You didn't MFC the iso.1 target.  We are all building releases on
RELENG_4 right now :-) (-current releases have been broken for quite a
while).  Thus my patch was developed on RELENG_4 and only committed to
current so I could as the RE about MFC'ing it.

-- 
-- David  ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

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



iso target in release/Makefile

2001-08-19 Thread Jordan Hubbard

H.  I'm not sure why this reinvents a lot of the "wheel" in the
already existing iso.1 target.  Could you explain its purpose a little
better as well as why you didn't simply conditionalize the iso.1
target in some way if it didn't currently suit?  As it is, we have
two targets now and that doesn't make much sense, to say nothing
of the asthetics.  Thanks.

- Jordan


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