From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Jun  7 19:23:20 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA20632
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA20551;
          Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02108; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:21:42 -0600
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:21:42 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199606080221.UAA02108@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>,
        hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org,
        FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.93.960608104358.14546A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
References: <199606072207.QAA00896@rocky.sri.MT.net>
	<Pine.SV4.3.93.960608104358.14546A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Terry proposes a set of tools to help enforce the policy of always having
> a buildable tree.  Would this make the commit process too cumbersome? 

Because these tools are unattainable.  Saying 'it would be nice if we
could guarantee that the tree was always buildable' is like saying 'it
would be nice if everyone liked everyone'.  It's a wonderful goal, but
it's unattainable given the current resources.


Nate