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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
