Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 23:24:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Shapiro <Shimon@i-Connect.Net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: fullermd@futuresouth.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@time.cdrom.com, (Warner Losh) <imp@village.org> Subject: Re: group assignments from make world. Message-ID: <XFMail.971009232421.Shimon@i-Connect.Net> In-Reply-To: <199710091911.MAA06915@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Terry Lambert; On 09-Oct-97 you wrote: ... > Does this strike anyone else as a discipline issue rather than > a user read-access control issue? Yes. It is what I mean by quantitive vs. qaulitive. We are discssing a rule implementation while the old one is not enforced. Too many rules, and this will become M$ Technet (or whatver they call it nowdays. Splitting the lists to more specialized is good, but the quality of our work is more important. If submitters will always do a make world on every patch before submitting, maybe 10% of the noise will go away (I usspect the number is too high, but we have seen that happen. Checkpoints are also useful; Take so many checkins, build (automatically, and publish the last successful checkpoint. Restricting cvs update downloads while an upload is in progress makes sense. I solve this one by careful monitoring of the cvsup run and double running, to get a clean, no-change run. But I am a novice to this... --- Sincerely Yours, Simon Shapiro Atlas Telecom Senior Architect 14355 SW Allen Blvd., Suite 130 Beaverton OR 97005 Shimon@i-Connect.Net Voice: 503.799.2313
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.971009232421.Shimon>