Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 08:50:40 -0700 From: Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Archive pruning Message-ID: <20000426085040.A59015@wopr.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <v0422080bb52c73ecad80@[195.238.1.121]>; from blk@skynet.be on Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:24:59PM %2B0200 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004251240210.11211-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <00042515105300.02802@nomad.dataplex.net> <20000425133242.A42075@wopr.caltech.edu> <v0422080bb52c73ecad80@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 need to examine history. > > True enough. However, how many "normal users" would you expect > to be subscribing to the freebsd-current mailing list? If this is a [...] > So, you are either forced to change your definition of "normal > users" to be people who would be subscribing to this list (and > hopefully contributing in some way) and you have to acknowledge that > change in definition, or you have to change the term that you use. Perhaps I am missing your point, but in terms of deciding whether Richard's proposal has merit, the fact that we're discussing this on -CURRENT does not seem to me to be an issue. 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. If 10% of the people who run -CURRENT would find a pruned-history repository useful, but only 10% of our user-base runs -CURRENT, then it seems to me that the fact that it benefits 1% of the user population is the relevant figure. (This is different from the usual case of only putting new features in -CURRENT, because that code will eventually become -STABLE; the people benefitting from Richard's proposal, according to the arguments I've seen so far, are the ones who keep running -CURRENT, whatever that happens to be at the moment.) Does this address your criticism? Matt -- Matthew Hunt <mph@astro.caltech.edu> * UNIX is a lever for the http://www.pobox.com/~mph/ * intellect. -J.R. Mashey To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000426085040.A59015>