From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Mar 16 14:41:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA06009 for stable-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 1996 14:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA06004 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 1996 14:41:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from 199.183.109.242 by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Sat, 16 Mar 1996 16:41:16 -0600 Message-ID: Date: 16 Mar 1996 16:40:32 -0600 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" Subject: Re(2): Commit messages To: "Andreas Klemm" , "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" , "Peter Wemm" X-Mailer: Mail*Link PT/Internet 1.6.0 Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Andreas Klemm wrote: > On 15 Mar 1996, Peter Wemm wrote: > > Well, if there was enough demand for it, I guess I could whip something > > up to do it... (It wouldn't be too hard, just a few lines of perl) > > > > Note that I personally dislike the idea, but I'm happy to go along with > > what people want. > > > IMHO, if we do this, then we're going to have problems > > with people that are running -stable not knowing what's in the pipeline in > > -current, and we'll start to see wheels being reinvented... > > You're right, people who want to get the source repository for -stable > should also receive -current to prevent this. > > The ones who want only the newest stable source have already the > possibility to sup -stable. I think that you are missing the point. Even if I use sup or CTM to get the sources, it is very useful to know what/why things were changed. The commit messages are the best documentation readily available. However, if I am not interested in -current, I hate to wade through all the changes that have absolutely no value to me in order to find the few that do apply to the -stable branch.