>
> What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that
> the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ?
>
> This sounds odd at first glance, but it means that others are forced
> to MFC into the smp branch - if they don't they lose.
>
> Anybody that's not confident to be able to merge into the smp branch
> will simply be in the same position - merge or hold off. They'd also
> be just as likely to break the smp work with their commits as if the
> smp work was done in HEAD.
>
Isn't this the same thing as breaking the head and keeping every thing
else (that is the pre-broken 5.0) on a branch...
Just sorta rotating the tree a little...
And, isn't this the same idea as -stable?
If that's all true - I'd suggest that those who really want stability
might be better served with the -stable branch for the interim. If you
need a totally-brand-new-feature, then MFC that to -stable and get
it there...
The point of -current is to be breakable - the extent of the breaking
isn't known ahead of time. -current can be broken for a long time by
simply breaking several small things - say, one a day for several months.
The difference here seems to be the forethought in the announcement;
which I take as good planning... i.e. instead of being broken for
some unknown reasons, we're simply saying that we know it's broken...
If you can't live with a broken situation, then I humbly suggest staying
with -stable.
I suppose I can sum this up with "isn't this already handled?"
- Dave Rivers -
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe (370) `C' compiler at http://www.dignus.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
