On Tue, 16 May 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
> >
> > > Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > > >
> > > > Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
> >
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
>
> > Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > >
> > > Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
> > > means that you can get your own official Ancient UNIX(TM
On Sat 2000-04-29 (20:56), gh wrote:
> For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at
> least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete.
> As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors?
You are welcome to co-ordinate the resources (developer time, band
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, gh wrote:
> For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at
> least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete.
> As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors?
Oh, for god's sake, PLEASE let this drop! I don't want to insult a
new
For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at
least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete.
As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors?
Dan K.
gh
| On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
|
| > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote:
| >
| > >
At 1:21 PM -0400 4/28/00, Garrett Wollman wrote:
><<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
> > history records available?
>
>You can buy them on CD-ROM, IIRC. In order to do so, however, you
>must first take out a SCO ``Historical UNIX Vers
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
>
> > Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > >
> > > Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
> > > means that you can get your own official
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote:
> Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> >
> > Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which
> > means that you can get your own official Ancient UNIX(TM) Source Code
> > License for free. This roughly cuts
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
> > > > I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
> > > > continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
> > >
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
> > > I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
> > > continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
> >
> > I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
>
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
> > I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
> > continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
>
> I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
> history records available?
Glad you asked. http://w
< said:
> I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
> history records available?
You can buy them on CD-ROM, IIRC. In order to do so, however, you
must first take out a SCO ``Historical UNIX Versions'' personal
license.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We a
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then
> continued in the CSRG SCCS tree).
^^
I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD
history records available?
-Brian
--
Brian De
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 08:53:52AM -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
Richard, for the record, I'd like to point out that the person who said
this is not a developer and therefore the backlashing you're getting is not
solely from developers. Other people are sic
Hi,
I've been idly watching this thread and decided to check
a few numbers Is it truly worth pruning?
I mirror the freebsd repository, mail archives, and
www site locally:
size 1.9Gig.
time 4:48minabout 2/5 gig per minute
ie: it takes about 5 minutes for the up
On 27-Apr-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
>
>> *Bzzzt*. Wrong. You only get the old history during the intial cvsup.
>> And since the most recent revisions are stored at the beginning of an RCS
>> file, you don't pay for this on cvs operations except for 'cvs l
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
> *Bzzzt*. Wrong. You only get the old history during the intial cvsup.
> And since the most recent revisions are stored at the beginning of an RCS
> file, you don't pay for this on cvs operations except for 'cvs log' and
> other operations dealing with the hist
On 26-Apr-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
>
>> Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code
>> is totally and completely without value. You haven't proven the value of
>> your suggestion to _anyone's_ satisfaction, so no one is goin
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:27:22PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > Why would "The Project" have to do anything? We've already established
> > this is of minority appeal,
>
> Have we? Really? We have established that this is of minority
It seems to me that the typical assumption is that
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 06:11:23PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> I am only guessing, but the way I read the original proposal
> (which Richard has been advocating much more strongly than the person
> who originally proposed it) sounded to me like it would benefit
> anyone and everyone tha
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
>
> > Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code
> > is totally and completely without value.
> You are correct that I "haven't proven" yet.
. . .
> I'll sit back and wait...
To Unsubscribe:
At 8:50 AM -0700 2000/4/26, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> In any case where somebody says "Y'all should do such-and-such"
> without ponying up the code himself, we should be thinking about
> whether the benefit to the users will "pay for" the time it takes
> us to do it.
Sounds like a reason
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> You are correct that I "haven't proven" yet. Much of this is because the
> audience doesn't relate to the problem because they don't see themselves
> directly impacted by it. However, they are paying for it every time they use
> cvsup or cvs.
"Frankly, my dear, I d
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:24:59PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
> > on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
> > User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
> > not have a fre
At 1:36 PM -0700 2000/4/25, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Why would "The Project" have to do anything? We've already established
> this is of minority appeal,
Have we? Really? We have established that this is of minority
appeal to the people who have spoken up on this mailing list, but
do
At 1:32 PM -0700 2000/4/25, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
> on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
> User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
> not have a frequent need to examine
At 2:22 PM -0600 2000/4/25, Nate Williams wrote:
> I consider you a very small minority. A user who is not a developer,
> but who could be a developer. The amount of work it would take to
> support your needs is way too much work, and it would only benefit <
> 1-2% of the user base. Does t
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote:
> Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code
> is totally and completely without value. You haven't proven the value of
> your suggestion to _anyone's_ satisfaction, so no one is going to do it
> for you. So if you're not willing
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > > Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
> >
> > ...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile.
>
> Yes, the developers do a good job of repre
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote:
>
> > I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but
> > you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of
> > the other respondants
>
> Actually, I didn't start
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
> on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe
> User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do
> not have a frequent need to examine history. T
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too
> > much work to prove the obvious. I don't have to convince myself of
> > anything. The only value accrues if it gets used.
>
> Erm, haven't we been here with you before? I c
> And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much
> work to prove the obvious. I don't have to convince myself of anything.
> The only value accrues if it gets used.
Erm, haven't we been here with you before? I can even replay the
script from heart:
1. Richard come
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working
> on the code,
I disagree. Anyone who attempts to run "-current" on a regular basis
needs the recent history to cobble together a working system.
It is also very helpful if you are a "te
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:30:27PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from
> their own.
It should be noted that the person who brought this up was a developer.
--
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->++
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:30:27PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much
I cannot remember anybody ever having a guarantee that their submission
will be incorporated into FreeBSD, code-unseen. That's not how it works.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from
> their own.
Thats an interesting revision of the plain facts.
> And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much
> work to prove the obvious
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:10:53PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when
> they are told some is impossible. After all, they are at the mercy of the
> very developers who oppose change because it does not directly benefit
>
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
>
> ...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile.
Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from
their own.
> > No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history.
> > Just use CVSup to grab the latest bits, no need to grab the entire
> > history.
>
> I find it virtually impossible to work with anything but the most stable
> without the recent part of the repository because I often h
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile.
> The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when
> they are told some is impossible. After all, they are a
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote:
> I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but
> you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of
> the other respondants
Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea.
> P.S. Please don't t
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> Actually, it isn't. it can be automated rather easily based on parsing the
> CVS tags and using RCS primitives.
>
> The hard part is to get developers like yourself to recognize that they could
> refer to a CD for the old parts to the history a
> > I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
> > questions arise.
>
> You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
> the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at histor
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
> No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history.
> Just use CVSup to grab the latest bits, no need to grab the entire
> history.
I find it virtually impossible to work with anything but the most stable
without the recent part of t
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
> > I'm violently opposed to removing it completely. The only thing I
> > wouldn't be violently opposed to would be removing 'Attic' files (truly
> > unused file), and having them stored away somewhere in the tree for
> > archival purposes.
>
> You rea
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
> > You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
> > the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
>
> You're welcome to remove whatever history you like from your personal
> copy.
Not if I want to k
Jon Hamilton wrote:
> I've been following this thread at some distance for a while, and I
> don't understand your definition of ``everyone''. Aside from developers,
> who do you feel is a good candidate to track the entire CVS repository, rather
> than using CVSUP or some other method to get onl
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote:
>
> > I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
> > questions arise.
>
> You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
> the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
> I'm violently opposed to removing it completely. The only thing I
> wouldn't be violently opposed to would be removing 'Attic' files (truly
> unused file), and having them stored away somewhere in the tree for
> archival purposes.
You realize that its
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Wackerbarth wrote
} > > Do we really need 5 year old history?
} >
} > Yes.
} I don't disagree that we need to maintain the history.
}
} I do, however, question the policy that REQUIRES EVERYONE to maintain that
} much history.
I've been following this t
< said:
> You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
> the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
You're welcome to remove whatever history you like from your personal
copy. It's not worth the effort to the project as a whole to save a
small amount
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Do we really need 5 year old history?
>
> That really depends on your point of view.
>
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
> -- Santayana
>
> "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing fr
> Do we really need 5 year old history?
That really depends on your point of view.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
-- Santayana
"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."
-- Hegel
I am with Hegel
> I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
>
> I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
> away all history more than 3 (or maybe 2, maybe 4) years old.
I'm violen
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote:
> I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
> questions arise.
You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with
the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:59:46PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > Do we really need 5 year old history?
> a) yes, we need the history.
> b) do we need it "online everywhere"?
> I think the answer is "no". However the sandbox engineers think differently.
> c) I've brought this up more than
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
> Do we really need 5 year old history?
Yes.
--
| Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL| ix86,sparc,pmax |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent | IS
< said:
> OK. Thanks, I wanted some opinions, and I guess I have enough to satisfy
> me.
I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal
questions arise. Should some submarine patent cover parts of
FreeBSD's practice, it will turn out to be extremely important to be
able to do
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> > it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
>
> I'm "violently opposed". :-)
>
> > While folks do
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
> I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
>
> I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
> away all history more than 3 (or
* Chuck Robey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000424 19:15] wrote:
> I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
>
> I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
> away all history
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> > it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
>
> I'm "violently opposed". :-)
>
> > W
Chuck Robey wrote:
> I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
Okay: "so." :-)
> Do we really need 5 year old history?
Well, unfortunately (and I speak from painful experience), yes. You never
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote:
> I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I'm "violently opposed". :-)
> While folks do sometimes go hunting for hugely old materia
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
> I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
> it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
>
> I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
> away all history more than 3 (
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on
it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine.
I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune
away all history more than 3 (or maybe 2, maybe 4) years old. This could
be done
67 matches
Mail list logo
