From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 13 15:58:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from topperwein.dyndns.org (acs-24-154-28-203.zoominternet.net [24.154.28.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8DDE37B400 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from topperwein (topperwein [192.168.168.10]) by topperwein.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2DNw0M35476 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:58:00 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from behanna@zbzoom.net) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:57:55 -0500 (EST) From: Chris BeHanna Reply-To: Chris BeHanna To: FreeBSD-Stable Subject: Re: /etc/make.conf question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020313185236.T35428-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 13 Mar 2002, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > "Jeffrey J. Mountin" writes: > > > No matter, it's not good to publicly suggest non-standard procedures. > > Wheewww. Matthew and I can consider ourselfs fortunate that we made no > suggestions. > > > Matthew's > > "make update buildworld kernel" is even worse as doing an update without > > knowing you are in the middle of a mass commit is one way to break a > > build. > > Another way is to use the "standard procedure". It's still not clear to > me how four steps is better than one, at least until I understand how to > avoid the mid-commit problem. > > > Better to pull and wait at least a short time before building to ensure > > one has all the commits of a change. > > The wait won't ensure that, of course. How DOES one ensure that? I cvsup at least twice. If I get no changes the second time, I'm reasonably certain that what I have is not a mid-commit snapshot. Of course, I don't do this every night, or even every week--that might be a bit abusive to the mirror. When Subversion comes out (authored by many of the same fine folks who brought you CVS, in an effort to do away with the myriad hacks that comprise CVS), it will support atomic commits, which will neatly do away with the "I checked out my sources in the middle of someone else's commit" problem. I don't know if the FreeBSD Project will switch (I've heard rumblings about Perforce), but I personally (as RE at my company) will be taking a very long look at Subversion, in the hopes that it will solve many of the gripes that people have with CVS (it'll also save me from doing a lot of scripting hacks to add quasi-transactional behavior on top of CVS). A big thank-you to Keith Bostic as well: Subversion is built atop Berkeley DB. -- Chris BeHanna Software Engineer (Remove "bogus" before responding.) behanna@bogus.zbzoom.net I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message