Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:40:58 -0500 (EST) From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com> To: Todd Whitesel <toddpw@best.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, art@stacken.kth.se, alicia@internetpaper.com, netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG, FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, advocacy@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Merging Net/Free/Open-BSD together against Linux Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981129162602.867B-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com> In-Reply-To: <199811290635.WAA28011@shell17.ba.best.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Todd Whitesel wrote: > > > If there is suficcient interest/manpower to make it more than a > > > one-man show, I'll set up a 3-way CVS mirror at UVa or maybe a local ISP. > > > We can tag an initial starting point and start merging into one of the > > > three trees. If this bears fruit we can then re-merge any recent changes > > > and make it a new baseline for userland. (Yes, there is undoubtedly a lot > > > more to consider, but it's a start.) [...] > Provide a tree that people can use to merge individual userland programs, > and publish status reports on how each individual program is doing: whether > it is unified, and which of the 3 projects has adopted the unified version. This is a valid approach. But I think it has more logistical problems. Do all three BSD's maintain identicle copies of the source in their CVS repositories? This somewhat complicated. Check-in's are multiplied three fold. It makes more sense in my mind to have a single repository for working this out. If not an independent repository, then at the very least a branch off one repository. Then each camp as they see fit could drop /usr soruces and rely upon the unified versions. I really want to take as neutral as possible approach to this. Metaphorically, unified sources would be to gods. They are free to take it or leave it. I tend to believe if it's good, it will be accepted. Also relying upon one group as a primary repository seems politically risky. > It is vastly more important that the _easy_ merges get done than that _all_ > the merges get done. Absolutely. Get the easy ones done first. (That's why the kerel's are left for last^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnot included. :-) > I suspect that the reason most of the past projects failed is because too > many people refused to even _start_ on them until they were certain that > the entire stated goal of the project could be completed. Screw that!! A > partial success still has much benefit for everyone. > > Todd Whitesel > toddpw @ best.com I think I have already recieved enough interest to get things rolling. I'm game for trying without much more aproval or discussion. As I said before, if the fruits are ripe and sweet, I doubt they will be overlooked. Adrian -- [ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.981129162602.867B-100000>