> >
> > 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...
[.....]
> I suppose I can sum this up with "isn't this already handled?"
True, if you run current you've gotta be able to cope with the blood.
However, I don't think it's a good idea to have a single project
prevent a load of other developers from doing their bits - not if it
can be helped.
I'm sure SMP is not the only code in -current that's not ready for
-stable yet.
> - Dave Rivers -
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Work: (919) 676-0847
> Get your mainframe (370) `C' compiler at http://www.dignus.com
--
Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
