Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:46:22 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@pipeline.ch> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/3.0-19980923-BETA/ Message-ID: <199809241346.VAA20850@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:37:08 %2B0200." <360A20D4.45A2010C@pipeline.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote: > Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > -snip- > > There's a swift current right now (groan), so if you don't subscribe > > to cvs-all, now might be an excellent time to do so, at least during > > the extent of the BETA period. :) > > That would kill me :( > > I'd like to see at least the base FreeBSD and Ports cvs lists separated. > > I fall on my knees and pray to you: please, please do this list. Hmm.. This isn't out of the question.. It looks like the split (by subtree) mailing lists got killed while I was away. Is there a need for (say): cvs-all (all commits) cvs-30 (all commits related to 3.0 (aka -current, -beta, -stable etc) cvs-22 (all commits related to 2.2.x (aka 2.2-stable etc) cvs-ports (ports commits) cvs-www (www tree) ie: - a commit to src/* in -current would go to cvs-all and cvs-30. - a commit to docs/* would go to cvs-all, cvs-22, cvs-30 (since it's used in both branches - the docs area is not branched) - a commit to ports/* would go to cvs-all and cvs-ports. Would this be useful? Too much? Too little? THis is different to what we had before where commits to all branches were lumped in together. > ;-) > -- > Andre Cheers, -Peter 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?199809241346.VAA20850>