Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 10:08:30 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: sup: Ok, I'm gonna do it. Message-ID: <9502011708.AA06926@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <v02110100ab552953be65@[199.183.109.242]> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Feb 1, 95 06:56:24 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Perhaps we need a two step commit process. Basically, developers commit to > "wanna-be-current". Periodically take a snapshot of this and test to see if > everything compiles. If not, it gets bounced! Things that pass the sieve go > into "current". Topologically equivalent to: lock w commit resolve conflicts check out build unlock Except the second approach doesn't require as much local disk. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502011708.AA06926>