Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:15:32 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <199609050145.LAA07943@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <v02140b02ae53a4a2fce7@[208.2.87.4]> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Sep 4, 96 04:50:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth stands accused of saying: > > Not in this case. This involves a policy change for the distribution > of FreeBSD. THere is no way that I can modify the distribution > channels without the "blessing" of the 'core'. You don't have to 'modify' anything. If you want to see your plans in action, you should be setting up the service _in_parallel_. Just because you can't convert the whole community to your One True Policy instantly is no reason not to try it. > At the top, we have those who either have direct access to the master tree > or are willing to live with CVSup'ed images taken from it. > > At the next level, we have frequent snapshots of the tree. These are > clocked by the ctm-cvs generator (every 6 hours, I believe). I would have > the sup mirrors use this as their distributable product. So far there is nothing new here. All this is already in place. > The third level would be the "current" (or as someone said, "recent") tree. > It would also be synced to the above mentioned distributions. However, the > distribution can be delayed or skipped until some verfication of the > "buildability" has been established. So you are proposing that there be a -recent thread, which is qualified as 'the last -current that survives a full build'. Ok, no problem there. > The entire process is implemented with existing and tested components. > > I have now done as much as I reasonably can do without authorization to > actually implement the scheme. Huh? Where is your test-build server? Where are your publically-released scripts that run 'make bootstrap;make world', and if the build fails restore the _entire_system_ to a previously-saved checkpoint state. > I cannot do "what I want". This doesn't follow from what you've just stated. The _only_ new element in your masterplan is the creation of the -recent thread, which as a direct derivative of -current, can be done by any site or sites currently using any of the -current update mechanisms. With access to sup/CVSup/CTM you can simulate reasonably accurately the master CVS repository from which all changes would be flowing. Then you can implement the downstream system(s) either with your own resources or with some volunteers. If your plan works, more will join the bandwagon. If it sinks, we don't go down with you. > Neither can I demonstrate a working modification to the make system without > first removing a bunch of inappropriate absolute file references. But I > cannot get anyone to agree to make those changes until I demonstrate that > it all works. And? Take your system, make the changes, submit a set of diffs and some descriptions of what they do and then advocate them. You seem to think that the only way to 'demonstrate' something is by forcing everyone else to 'walk this way' and refusing to explain it beforehand. This is not collaborative development; this is despotism. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609050145.LAA07943>