Re: Public Access to Perforce?

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Robert Watson wrote:

> One of our hopes was to find a model that has some of the benefits of a
> "contrib" model, wherein only more stable/discrete change sets go into
> CVS, but without the more painful aspects of CVS vendor branches or the
> notion of the "primary" copy being maintained elsewhere.

Don't forget the fact that anyone who tracks our CVS trees via cvsup also
winds up with a copy of all that history, forever, on their hard drive.
If the 'history' were to expand to cover all the intermediate and
rejected steps in some of these sub-projects, we would add repo bloat
(and resulting server and download times) for very little gain.

Just because something gets merged into -current doesn't mean that
the changes have to stand, either: there is plenty of evidence that
things get critically reviewed and revised, no matter what the source.

mcl