On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
means that you can get your own official Ancient UNIX(TM) Source
On Tue, 16 May 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
means that you
For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at
least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete.
As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors?
Dan K.
gh
| On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
|
| On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote:
|
| I
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, gh wrote:
For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at
least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete.
As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors?
Oh, for god's sake, PLEASE let this drop! I don't want to insult a
On Sat 2000-04-29 (20:56), gh wrote:
For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at
least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete.
As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors?
You are welcome to co-ordinate the resources (developer time,
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
^^
I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
history records available?
-Brian
--
Brian
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:17:56 -0400 (EDT), Brian Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
history records available?
You can buy them on CD-ROM, IIRC. In order to do so, however, you
must first take out a SCO ``Historical UNIX Versions''
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
history records available?
Glad you asked.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
history
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
I've wanted
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
means that you can get your own official Ancient UNIX(TM) Source Code
License for free. This roughly cuts in half
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
means that you can get your own official Ancient
At 1:21 PM -0400 4/28/00, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:17:56 -0400 (EDT), Brian Dean
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
history records available?
You can buy them on CD-ROM, IIRC. In order to do so, however, you
must
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 08:53:52AM -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Richard, for the record, I'd like to point out that the person who said
this is not a developer and therefore the backlashing you're getting is not
solely from developers. Other people are
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile.
Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code
is totally and completely without value. You haven't proven the value of
your suggestion to _anyone's_ satisfaction, so no one is going to do it
for you. So if you're not willing to
At 2:22 PM -0600 2000/4/25, Nate Williams wrote:
I consider you a very small minority. A user who is not a developer,
but who could be a developer. The amount of work it would take to
support your needs is way too much work, and it would only benefit
1-2% of the user base. Does this
At 1:32 PM -0700 2000/4/25, Matthew Hunt wrote:
Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
not have a frequent need to examine
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:24:59PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
not have a frequent
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
You are correct that I "haven't proven" yet. Much of this is because the
audience doesn't relate to the problem because they don't see themselves
directly impacted by it. However, they are paying for it every time they use
cvsup or cvs.
"Frankly, my dear, I
At 8:50 AM -0700 2000/4/26, Matthew Hunt wrote:
In any case where somebody says "Y'all should do such-and-such"
without ponying up the code himself, we should be thinking about
whether the benefit to the users will "pay for" the time it takes
us to do it.
Sounds like a
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code
is totally and completely without value.
You are correct that I "haven't proven" yet.
. . .
I'll sit back and wait...
To Unsubscribe: send
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 06:11:23PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
I am only guessing, but the way I read the original proposal
(which Richard has been advocating much more strongly than the person
who originally proposed it) sounded to me like it would benefit
anyone and everyone that
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:27:22PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
Why would "The Project" have to do anything? We've already established
this is of minority appeal,
Have we? Really? We have established that this is of minority
It seems to me that the typical assumption is that if
On 26-Apr-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code
is totally and completely without value. You haven't proven the value of
your suggestion to _anyone's_ satisfaction, so no one is going to do
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
*Bzzzt*. Wrong. You only get the old history during the intial cvsup.
And since the most recent revisions are stored at the beginning of an RCS
file, you don't pay for this on cvs operations except for 'cvs log' and
other operations dealing with the
On 27-Apr-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
*Bzzzt*. Wrong. You only get the old history during the intial cvsup.
And since the most recent revisions are stored at the beginning of an RCS
file, you don't pay for this on cvs operations except for 'cvs log' and
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote:
I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
questions arise.
You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
Jon Hamilton wrote:
I've been following this thread at some distance for a while, and I
don't understand your definition of ``everyone''. Aside from developers,
who do you feel is a good candidate to track the entire CVS repository, rather
than using CVSUP or some other method to get only
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:09:14 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
You're welcome to remove whatever
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
I'm violently opposed to removing it completely. The only thing I
wouldn't be violently opposed to would be removing 'Attic' files (truly
unused file), and having them stored away somewhere in the tree for
archival purposes.
You realize that
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history.
Just use CVSup to grab the latest bits, no need to grab the entire
history.
I find it virtually impossible to work with anything but the most stable
without the recent part of the
I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
questions arise.
You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Actually, it isn't. it can be automated rather easily based on parsing the
CVS tags and using RCS primitives.
The hard part is to get developers like yourself to recognize that they could
refer to a CD for the old parts to the history and
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote:
I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but
you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of
the other respondants
Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
P.S. Please don't tell
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile.
The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when
they are told some is impossible. After all, they are at
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:10:53PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when
they are told some is impossible. After all, they are at the mercy of the
very developers who oppose change because it does not directly benefit
the
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from
their own.
Thats an interesting revision of the plain facts.
And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much
work to prove the obvious. I
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:30:27PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much
I cannot remember anybody ever having a guarantee that their submission
will be incorporated into FreeBSD, code-unseen. That's not how it works.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:30:27PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from
their own.
It should be noted that the person who brought this up was a developer.
--
Will Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GCS/E/S @d- s+:++:- a---+++ C++
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote:
Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
on the code,
I disagree. Anyone who attempts to run "-current" on a regular basis
needs the recent history to cobble together a working system.
It is also very helpful if you are a
And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much
work to prove the obvious. I don't have to convince myself of anything.
The only value accrues if it gets used.
Erm, haven't we been here with you before? I can even replay the
script from heart:
1. Richard comes
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too
much work to prove the obvious. I don't have to convince myself of
anything. The only value accrues if it gets used.
Erm, haven't we been here with you before? I can even
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote:
Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
not have a frequent need to examine history.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote:
I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but
you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of
the other respondants
Actually, I didn't start this.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
away all history more than 3 (or
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I'm "violently opposed". :-)
While folks do sometimes go hunting for hugely old materials
Chuck Robey wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
Okay: "so." :-)
Do we really need 5 year old history?
Well, unfortunately (and I speak from painful experience), yes. You never
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I'm "violently opposed". :-)
While
* Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000424 19:15] wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
away all history more
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
away all history more than 3 (or
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I'm "violently opposed". :-)
While folks do sometimes
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:06:42 -0400 (EDT), Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
OK. Thanks, I wanted some opinions, and I guess I have enough to satisfy
me.
I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
questions arise. Should some submarine patent cover parts of
FreeBSD's
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
Do we really need 5 year old history?
Yes.
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL| ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:59:46PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
Do we really need 5 year old history?
a) yes, we need the history.
b) do we need it "online everywhere"?
I think the answer is "no". However the sandbox engineers think differently.
c) I've brought this up more than once.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote:
I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
questions arise.
You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
away all history more than 3 (or maybe 2, maybe 4) years old.
I'm violently
Do we really need 5 year old history?
That really depends on your point of view.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-- Santayana
"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."
-- Hegel
I am with Hegel
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Bakul Shah wrote:
Do we really need 5 year old history?
That really depends on your point of view.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-- Santayana
"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:09:14 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
You're welcome to remove whatever history you like from your personal
copy. It's
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Wackerbarth wrote
} Do we really need 5 year old history?
}
} Yes.
} I don't disagree that we need to maintain the history.
}
} I do, however, question the policy that REQUIRES EVERYONE to maintain that
} much history.
I've been following this thread
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
I'm violently opposed to removing it completely. The only thing I
wouldn't be violently opposed to would be removing 'Attic' files (truly
unused file), and having them stored away somewhere in the tree for
archival purposes.
You realize that its
62 matches
Mail list logo
