I'd just like to say, I'm really glad to see this work going on. On another note though (and I don't claim this applies in this case), the gradual adoption of the practice by various developers to squirl away changes to FreeBSD in their private repositories is responsible for a substantial loss in quality in the subsequent releases. I realize a less active -current is easier on developers--I ran 5.0-current throughout much of its life-- -current become down right pedestrian most of the time. Changes need more eyeballs + users at incremental stages than current development practices seem to enable. Yes it is more work to make a series of chuncked commits to -current but the reward is early detection of mistakes, clear intermediate states to revert to and rethink, and better feedback from the rest of the community. I think -core needs to step-up and re-evaluate the perforce approach. Is it really better? On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 04:00:42PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > >You'll get more feedback if the code is in the tree, and there is > > >precedent for committing filessystems without write support. > > While I understand that this has been done for other filesystems, > I am not going to put XFS into the FreeBSD tree until I feel > that it is ready. The source code and patches are available > for people to try, so just because something is not in the tree, > it does not preclude interested developers and users from > trying it out and providing feedback/patches. > > Thanks. > > -- > Craig Rodrigues > rodrigc_at_crodrigues.org > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" >Received on Sat Aug 20 2005 - 05:51:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:41 UTC