From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Jun 13 21:56:18 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA07137
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.barrnet.net (mail.barrnet.net [131.119.246.7])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA07105;
          Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by mail.barrnet.net (8.7.5/MAIL-RELAY-LEN) with SMTP id NAA03998; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA03809; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:54:06 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199606071954.MAA03809@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view
To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:54:06 -0700 (MST)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org,
        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199606071953.NAA00238@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 7, 96 01:53:25 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > Try using it _seriously_ someday and no explanation will be necessary.
> > > Suffice it to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > > documentation.
> > 
> > The problem with CVS is access protocol.
> 
> No, the problem is that CVS doesn't handle diverging source trees very
> well.  The access to the tree is *completely* and *utterly* irrelevant
> to the problems at hand, and just because you want it changed doesn't
> mean you should get on your soapbox and call for it's implentation.
> 
> Stick the to *problem* that's being discussed, not one that you (and
> only you) consider to be a real problem with CVS.
> 
> You're tryin to break the model that CVS was designed for, and this part
> of the model is *NOT* one of the problems FreeBSD is facing now.

Nate: you're wrong.

The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that -stable
is known to be buildable.  If -current were known to be buildable,
it would support the argument for getting rid of -stable.

CVS can reconcile source trees (merge branch tags) just fine... we
did that sort of thing at Novell with a CVS version of three years
ago, no problems.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.