Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:46:53 +0900
From:      gnn@FreeBSD.org
To:        Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>
Cc:        freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Dingo and PerForce
Message-ID:  <m21xdkweoy.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041220235736.GA6531@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
References:  <m2wtveex0w.wl@minion.local.neville-neil.com> <20041220235736.GA6531@odin.ac.hmc.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:57:36 -0800,
Brooks Davis wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 01:23:43PM +0900, gnn@freebsd.org wrote:
> > Howdy,
> > 
> > 	For those who use PerForce and want to work on Dingo there is
> > 	now a dingo branch, named "dingo".  The dingo branch contains
> > 	all of src, not just sys, as I suspect there are userland bits
> > 	we'll want to do.  I know I'll be doing userland things.
> 
> What's the planned model for committing changes to the main dingo
> branch?  The IPv6 ipfw patches I'm working with are probably ready
> for wider exposure.

I would think that work being done on Dingo, once people think it's
ready, should be shared.  The usual comments of "don't break the
build" apply.  I also figure that folks doing dingo work are watching
the dingo branch for changes, but it might be good, before a big
change, to say something here on net@.

> Also, for subsystems such as ip6fw that have no future, how
> agressive should we be about nuking them in dingo.  My guess is not
> very because we don't want to hamper work that might need to modify
> the old stuff to be committed when we aren't entierly sure how much
> longer we'll be supporting the subsystem in cvs, but I think there's
> some arugment for a more agressive approach to reduce the amount of
> junk we have to look at.

I like cleaning things up, but I'm really the greenhorn at committing
so I hope others wil chime in.  If it were my decision I would say
that the Dingo branch should be the "cleanest" and then we could
decide, when pushing to HEAD, how to handle that.

Other thoughts?

Later,
George



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m21xdkweoy.wl>