Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:06:09 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-usrsbin@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/rpc.yppasswdd yppasswd_comm.c Message-ID: <2368.848081169@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Nov 1996 06:12:31 PST." <199611151412.GAA15273@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I don't know if Poul-Henning has any objections, but in order to decrease the amount of merge load on he and I, I'd certainly not be opposed to certain core team members (Peter certainly being among them) simply doing merges on their own recognisance. I'm worried that batching too many merge requests will simply result in a different type of failure mode, where the one or two merge folk have looked at too many diffs that day and start to commit parts of the New York telephone book without thinking. I think Poul-Henning has already come close with some of the syntax errors he's occasionally merged. :-) This little 2.2. branch also looks like it's likely to stretch on for awhile, so we need to come up with some sort of strategy for handling it in a way that doesn't make everyone (more) insane. It's almost a shame that we've done things the way we have because if you really think about it, it's essentially backwards. By and large, the majority of changes to -current are *good* ones which you'd like to have in both branches, and the occasional 3.0-only changes are in the minority. Maybe a little front-end script to cvs commit which automagically commits to both HEAD and the currently active side-branch *unless* you say "oh no, this is 3.0 only stuff." :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2368.848081169>