Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:43:02 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 exception.s genassym.c machdep.c mp_machdep.c mpapic.c swtch.s vm_machdep.c src/sys/i386/include cpufunc.h pcb.h src/sys/i386/isa apic_vector.s clock.c icu_vector.s intr_machdep.c intr_machdep.h npx.c src/sys/kern ... Message-ID: <200202262143.g1QLh2L27678@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:27:03 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202261326390.98715-100000@beppo> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202261326390.98715-100000@beppo>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[[ moved to current ]] In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202261326390.98715-100000@beppo> Matthew Jacob writes: : > I would also like to have core take a stand that having code in P4 isn NOT : > the same as publishing it. P4 is an aid to the developer to do PRIVATE : > work. As long as the work is in P4 it is up to the developer to : > keep it in sync with -current. From the project's perspective : > work in P4 doesn't exist. : : : FWIW, concur. How is it different than publishing patches on a web site? There are a number of tools that one needs to have to get the patches, just like in P4. The P4 repo is available from cvsup10, so you don't even need to install P4 to see the patches. Our CVS meisters have told us in the past that branches on the CVS tree are bad, and NetBSD's experience is that not more than one or two are sustainable in the long run. I don't think P4 is the problem here. The problem is communication, expectations and work habits. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202262143.g1QLh2L27678>