httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: Change
Date Fri, 09 Jan 1998 16:26:40 GMT
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Rob Hartill wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> > That doesn't solve anything because it just creates yet another tree,
> 
> doesn't it solve the problem of having to generate patches for people to
> review and doesn't it solve the problem of the hassle of applying those
> patches to complete the review ?

Sure.

> 
> Some people want to commit then have their commits reviewed. Others want
> to have commits reviewed first. Both sides get what they want, no ?

Sure.  But both sides also get the very bad hassle of trying to be sure
that effort on one tree isn't wasted because it doesn't get into the
other, etc.

The FreeBSD way doesn't really work this way; there, -current is like 1.3,
-stable like 1.2.  In the past, -stable had very little work done on it
and quickly fell behind.  Now they are trying doing more work on -stable
to keep it updated with some things.  They, however, have a lot more
people doing it and generally no commits are made to -stable unless they
are in -current first.  There are exceptions, of course, and some things
aren't need in -current, etc.

> 
> > someone these trees have to magically stay together.
> 
> perhaps the magic can be assigned to the release manager who keeps
> the stable tree in-sync with what has been reviewed and approved.
> 
> The current cvs notification system generates the diffs that the RM
> can use to bring the stable tree up to date.
> 

The problem is that either that happens right away, or it gets left around
until later and then so many other things have changed that it has to be
manually patched, etc.

I simply don't think we have the resources for that.

> I thought it solved various problems at the heart of the current
> debate.
> 
> >  It is a big enough
> > pain maintaining minor changes to two source trees right now...
> > 
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Rob Hartill wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > don't shoot me, but what about a CVS tree for commit-then-review
> > > and one for review-then-commit ?
> > > 
> > > i.e. if I have a change I want people to review, I drop it into
> > > the c-t-r, people review it (don't, complain or whatever) and then
> > > it can be moved into the r-t-c tree later. The r-t-c tree can then
> > > be viewed as "stable" and safe for semi-automatic tarballing for
> > > release at any time. Developers would mostly use the c-t-r code,
> > > new-httpd testers (and there are lots of them) would us the r-t-c
> > > code.
> > > 
> > > This is similar to FreeBSD's -current and -stable except that they
> > > let those two drift miles apart. If we can keep the two close together
> > > (in content) then it could work.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Rob Hartill                              Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
> > > http://www.moviedatabase.com/   .. a site for sore eyes.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> Rob Hartill                              Internet Movie Database (Ltd)
> http://www.moviedatabase.com/   .. a site for sore eyes.
> 


Mime
View raw message