Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:17:40 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, re@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CVS Issues with branch.. Was: Re: HEADS UP: Be nice to -CURRENT ( "1 week Feature Slush" ) Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020315141422.13304C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <15505.25883.350996.459890@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Nate Williams wrote: > Only in very rare cases do we run into a problem where we have to create > a branch. In that case, the developer responsible for the release > creates a branch from his checked out tree (there's no law against > creating a branch from sources that are older than the HEAD), and then > makes any necessary changes. It's worth noting that the rationale for the branch was that we *want* -CURRENT development to continue at a wild and merry pace, and *expect* that it will. Once the branch occurs, Jeff is free to replace the kernel memory allocator, etc. Local tweaks on the branch may include backing out some of the more recent changes to locking (the VM changes, for example -- there have been some reports of stability problems from Alfred). I.e., there is a specific development process goal to be accomplished using the branch. My feeling is that at this point, we probably should just use Perforce due to limitations in CVS. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services 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?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020315141422.13304C-100000>