On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:47:02 +0400, Roman Kurakin <rik_at_cronyx.ru> wrote: > David Rhodus wrote: > > >On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:04:03 -0400, Chris BeHanna <chris_at_behanna.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Forgive me if this already exists. I searched the list archives, > >>google, and freebsd.org and did not find any way for non-committers to > >>have read-only access to the p4 repo. > >> > >> Is there a read-only account that the general public could use? > >> > >> > > > >With the perforce trees being hidden away without public access to the > >changes, this makes the FreeBSD project no longer an open source > >project. > > > > > This hides only development proccess, not a stable result. > If you don't have access to my home disks were I keep my > intermediate code with additional debug/hacks and so on > while I am debuggin new functionality would affect open > source status of results of my work? > > rik No this is not what I'm talking about, I don't think that level of development work is able to sustain here. The development work should be done in the public cvs tree were it is open to public scrutiny and were a section of the community can help on the development process. The current method of merging large commits back into the cvs tree from the perforce tree's should be inexcusable by the FreeBSD community. If perforce is the choice for FreeBSD a line needs to be drawn and completely move over to it. Then when the commercial problem comes from someone, well, we now have the foundation. I'm sure they can work something out with perforce. Even if that means contracting someone for ~80hrs of development work to write a perforce clone. The FreeBSD project has a -stable and a -current tree. This system has been under heavy abuse for the past several years now which is one of the leading causes of the major bulk of the development work to be pushed into perforce trees. This issue and the overwhelming unneeded complexity the code base has grown into are the reasons the development work is now being done were the public isn't able to access the code until a large commit hits the cvs tree. These large commits are a not harder to audit than a small steady stream of changes, which has always been the preferred method. -- -David Steven David Rhodus <drhodus_at_machdep.com>Received on Wed Aug 18 2004 - 11:24:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:07 UTC