Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 18:19:25 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.dialix.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Paul Traina <pst@freefall.freebsd.org>, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-user@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/tcpdump addrtoname.c print-isoclns.c Message-ID: <199608200019.SAA18527@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199608200014.IAA21614@spinner.DIALix.COM> References: <199608192159.PAA17988@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199608200014.IAA21614@spinner.DIALix.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I thought the idea of doing the 'contrib' thing was that we were > > supposed to create 'patches' to the sources, rather than patching the > > sources directly. If we patch the sources directly, were in the *exact* > > same boat we were in except the sources live in src/contrib. > > It would be a reasonable assumption that everybody's misunderstood at > least something, especially since it's new and not much uses it yet. > > The policy.sgml doc in the handbook that was generated from what was > proposed on the lists says that the 3rd party code goes on the vendor > branch and any freebsd specific changes go on the local branch, and that > the freebsd changes should be kept as small as practical. So how is this any different from the previos behavior of doing vendor branches inside the tree? Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608200019.SAA18527>