Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:53:25 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606071953.NAA00238@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606071822.LAA03612@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <15552.834154175@time.cdrom.com> <199606071822.LAA03612@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > > I buy most of Jordan's arguments about getting rid of -stable (though > > > I'm not sure why CVS should be the problem. Sure, I don't like it > > > either, but the way I see it, that's mainly a problem of > > > documentation), and so I'm not going to argue against killing -stable, > > > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606071953.NAA00238>