From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 22:08:53 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B0C16A41A; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:08:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail6.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.219]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B2013C474; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:08:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.8k2) with ESMTP id 206264228-1834499 for multiple; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:06:47 -0400 Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7UM8eMS063542; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:08:40 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: John-Mark Gurney Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:05:08 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200708271530.45290.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070829205537.GB977@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20070829205537.GB977@funkthat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708301805.10011.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:08:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/4109/Thu Aug 30 13:18:52 2007 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:14:36 +0000 Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein , cvs-all@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, eischen@vigrid.com, kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu, "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:08:53 -0000 On Wednesday 29 August 2007 04:55:37 pm John-Mark Gurney wrote: > John Baldwin wrote this message on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 15:30 -0400: > > On Monday 27 August 2007 02:57:41 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > Sorry for top posting, but... > > > > > > I agree very strongly with Warner, in short, if possible, reducing the > > > number of major gotchas of running current will make our developer > > > and early adopters a lot happier. > > > > > > It will help FreeBSD. > > > > > > One of the things that turns me off to FreeBSD is the feeling that > > > I get that certain people take some kind of pride in forcing users > > > to go through dangerous and complex hoops in order to run current. > > > > > > It shouldn't be so if the overhead of making it easier is so small. > > > > It has zero to do with pride, but it does have a lot to do with allowing HEAD > > to be a branch for development as opposed to the stable branches that are > > more intended with deployment. Those are quite different feature sets. > > Isn't that what perforce is for? > > Also, we NEED users to be running -current... How many times has a release > happened and people complained that it didn't get the testing it needed > to find bug xyz? If we take the attitude that only developers should > be running -current we'll continue w/ unhappy -stable releases like we > have in the past... > > Not that Kris doesn't do a great job finding bugs, but other people > are good at finding bugs too, and we shouldn't lock them out... How many custom kernels from p4 do you run from other people's branches? Putting stuff into HEAD is how we get wider exposure for stuff beyond a developer's own boxes (or a few other people who will test it). We can't restrict change so much in HEAD that we can't do development there. Also, for better or for worse, a lot of the peer review kicks in when stuff is committed to CVS, so churn in HEAD is quite common and it's going to continue to be there in the future. -- John Baldwin