Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:15:43 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, nate@sri.MT.net, hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606072215.PAA04267@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199606072207.QAA00896@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 7, 96 04:07:47 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I am not suggesting enforcing this at the tool level; I'm suggesting > > that the tools should be set up so that this is the "natural" result > > of their proper use. > > > > Right now, it is possible to properly use the tools in accordance > > with policy and end up with an unbuildable tree. > > Yes, but only if the developer isn't paying attention. This has > happened less times than I can count on two hands. Considering that > we're probably approaching hundreds of thousands of commits since we've > started, I'd say we're doing pretty well and that nothing needs to > change as far as that part of commit process goes. Look, I hate coming back to the recent yacc stuff because it makes it look like I'm pointing fingers, but it's just the most recent example in a long line of examples that belie your statement. If this weren't such a hot issue, everyone wouldn't be so ready to fly off the handle over it (you and me included). I don't want to argue the thing into the ground; you have my opinions, my reasoning behind those opinions, and my suggested approach to solving at least part of the problem (with one example method using the suggested approach). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606072215.PAA04267>