Re: FreeBSD 6.0 and onwards

According to Robert Watson:
> FreeBSD.org changes as vendor branches, then maintain your own work
> relative to it (perhaps you are already doing this?).  This will make sure
> that the arch mechanisms are up to the non-trivial load of tracking
> FreeBSD.

That's what I did for my update from ntp 4.1.1 to ntp 4.2 (it was
mentionned in the commit message).  I've also switched from Perforce 
(I used to have a free license) to GNU arch for all my own projects.

> Then we should see about whether there are FreeBSD developers who
> recognize the benefit of arch sufficiently to give it a spin using a
> repository and see how well it works for them.  I.e., host some
> sub-project out of arch with a few developers and make sure all is well --
> see what rough edges annoy, and which don't.  The noticeable annoyances in
> Perforce are things like the lack of offline operation and non-standard
> patch format, for example.

Arch has its own set of annoyances but the main change is in the way one
works with it compared to centralised systems like Svn or CVS.  The way
Arch manage the equivalent of CVS modules is quite different too.

For example, using Arch for the ports system would be quite a large task.

Sigh, I wish I had more time to play with these things :(
-- 
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto_at_keltia.freenix.fr
Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.6.0: Sun Oct 10 12:05:27 PDT 2004