From the keyboard of David O'Brien:
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
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
I hate this whole direction.
I think it's an incredibly bad idea that we are not going
to be able to reproduce what went onto any given CDROM in
ten years.
The source will be on the CDROM. Nor is there any major importance to
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 21:53, David O'Brien wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
primary goals in all of this are (1) to provide a usable preview of
the 5.0-CURRENT code, and (2) to minimize the impact on -CURRENT
developers. After evaluating several
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
I think it's an incredibly bad idea that we are not going
to be able to reproduce what went onto any given CDROM in
ten years.
I agree that it is very important to be able to reproduce official
releases of FreeBSD N years down
David O'Brien wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
I hate this whole direction.
I think it's an incredibly bad idea that we are not going
to be able to reproduce what went onto any given CDROM in
ten years.
The source will be on the CDROM. Nor is
Murray Stokely wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
I think it's an incredibly bad idea that we are not going
to be able to reproduce what went onto any given CDROM in
ten years.
I agree that it is very important to be able to reproduce official
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:08:43AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Minimally, pick a date, and then do a CVS diff against that
date, and include it on the CDROM.
I would be happy to do this. I checked out a copy of the CVS tree
right before we made the Perforce branch so that we could tag it
From the keyboard of Murray Stokely:
tree for previous snapshots. We are actually moving more in the
direction you advocate by at least moving the snapshot production into
Perforce so that more developers can participate.
Not taking into account (good) technical reasons, i am quite a bit
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
I hate this whole direction.
I think it's an incredibly bad idea that we are not going
to be able to reproduce what went onto any given CDROM in
ten years.
The source will be
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 02:13:16AM -0800, Annelise Anderson wrote:
If a tag was laid down can't it be retrieved indefinitely? A non-branching
tag? What am I missing?
The tag will create a point in time in the CVS repository that cannot be
ever changed. This is a restriction that we've
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:08:43AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Imagine that you have the developer's prerelease, and you
have a bug (because you're a developer who's using the
pre-release).
Now say you have become involved in the process, because the
pre-release has done it's job. You
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
At 1:15 AM -0800 3/17/02, Murray Stokely wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:08:43AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Minimally, pick a date, and then do a CVS diff against that
date, and include it on the CDROM.
I would be happy to do this. I checked out a copy of the CVS tree
right before we
At 8:35 AM -0800 3/17/02, David O'Brien wrote:
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.
Exactly my
In message p05101511b8bab342dc49@[128.113.24.47], Garance A Drosihn writes:
At 8:35 AM -0800 3/17/02, David O'Brien wrote:
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
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 1:15 AM -0800 3/17/02, Murray Stokely wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:08:43AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Minimally, pick a date, and then do a CVS diff against that
date, and include it on the CDROM.
I would be happy to do this. I checked out a copy
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 1:15 AM -0800 3/17/02, Murray Stokely wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:08:43AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
Minimally, pick a date, and then do a CVS diff against that
date, and include it on the CDROM.
I
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 13:18, Murray Stokely wrote:
Thanks for your cooperation in keeping -CURRENT relatively stable
over the past week. Due to a request from the CVS administrators, we
are performing the code branch in the Perforce depot under
//depot/releng/5_dp1/. Commits to this
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:43:47PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
primary goals in all of this are (1) to provide a usable preview of
the 5.0-CURRENT code, and (2) to minimize the impact on -CURRENT
developers. After evaluating several different options, using
Perforce was deemed the best
Wow.
I hate this whole direction.
I think it's an incredibly bad idea that we are not going
to be able to reproduce what went onto any given CDROM in
ten years.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
20 matches
Mail list logo
