On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 12:49:44PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> void wrote:
> > > A: ``I'll give you $200 to add $foo to the base system.''
> > > B: ``No, *I* bid $300 to get someone to work on $bar.''
> > > ...
> >
> > This has been mooted before, and I think people have even made efforts
void wrote:
> > A: ``I'll give you $200 to add $foo to the base system.''
> > B: ``No, *I* bid $300 to get someone to work on $bar.''
> > ...
>
> This has been mooted before, and I think people have even made efforts
> to implement, but it's never taken off in a big way.
Or Alfred would be
On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 01:23:33AM -0700, David Schultz wrote:
>
> I think you're on to something here. Just imagine:
>
> A: ``I'll give you $200 to add $foo to the base system.''
> B: ``No, *I* bid $300 to get someone to work on $bar.''
> ...
This has been mooted before, and I think peo
Thus spake Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> Doesn't bugzilla still have that remote exploit problem that
> was reported on Bugtraq?
>
> Also, I think voting is generally done by "write the code".
> You really can't demand volunteers work on what you want them
> to work on.
I think you're
David Schultz wrote:
> Thus spake Brandon D. Valentine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I know we've got gnats, but gnats doesn't really provide any of the
> > Request for Enhancement/voting features that Bugzilla does. FreeBSD
> > seems to have grown to a point where maybe some of Bugzilla's workflow
>
Thus spake Brandon D. Valentine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I know we've got gnats, but gnats doesn't really provide any of the
> Request for Enhancement/voting features that Bugzilla does. FreeBSD
> seems to have grown to a point where maybe some of Bugzilla's workflow
> benefits could be realized.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>At the end of the day, we need to lower the barrier to adding
>documentation, while increasing the quality. Far from an easy task.
I agree with your point. It would be nice to break down barriers to
documentation. However, I don't think any of the sugg
In a message written on Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:15:58AM -0700, JJ Behrens wrote:
> The online documentation for PHP allows users to post comments at the end of
> every page of the online documentation. Often times, these comments serve to
> enlighten others about various quirks of the libraries.
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:15:58AM -0700, JJ Behrens wrote:
>
> The online documentation for PHP allows users to post comments at the end of
> every page of the online documentation. Often times, these comments serve to
> enlighten others about various quirks of the libraries. Perhaps doing the
> All this dovetails with something I expressed earlier, with regards to
> annotating documentation. Somehow, this community needs to be able to
> process a certan class of ideas in a format other than linear mailing
> lists. Perhaps some sort of meta-document is needed which describes
> how thin
On Fri, 3 May 2002 09:15:01 -0400
Brian T.Schellenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTS> Stable is, in fact, fairly stable. I mean, if you are going to track updates
I would go so far as to say that -stable is remarkably stable. So
much so that it is easily mistaken for some kind of ma
Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
> The existance of this thread merely demonstrates that people don't make use
> the resources that are already out there.
No, the existence of this thread demonstrates that the historical explanation
is less than satisfying as an excuse for the broken nomenclature
On Friday 03 May 2002 02:37 am, Dave Hayes wrote:
|
|
| All this dovetails with something I expressed earlier, with regards to
| annotating documentation. Somehow, this community needs to be able to
| process a certan class of ideas in a format other than linear mailing
| lists. Perhaps some sort
Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's been hashed
Double gah. Forget I said anything. ;)
> However, just ranting about this problem[0] won't accomplish anything
> other then wasting a lot of time and energy, IMO. There's plenty of
> histor
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 10:03:24PM -0700, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
>
> >>I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
> >>branch "-stable" when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
> >>IMNSHO.
> >
> >
> > DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS
Brooks Davis wrote:
>>I'm sure you folks hashed this all over before, but really...calling a
>>branch "-stable" when it really isn't is not good semantic practice
>>IMNSHO.
>
>
> DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER STARTING THIS THREAD!!! It's been hashed over more
> times then are worth counting on various
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:44:02PM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
> Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > -STABLE is called -STABLE these days, but RELENG_X -STABLE is
> > really RELENG_X_Y + changes pending RELENG_X_(Y+1). Way back
> > when, I think we had a long knock-down drag-out fight abou
Thanks all for the responses. Between the web pages and this
discussion, my knowledge of this has now become a *lot* clearer.
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -STABLE is called -STABLE these days, but RELENG_X -STABLE is
> really RELENG_X_Y + changes pending RELENG_X_(Y+1). Way back
>
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
> Yes it does. Thank you for your through and detailed explaination.
I'm positive that someone else could have done a better
job, and then updated the documentation (hint hint 8-)).
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers"
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:37 PM
> Drew Tomlinson wrote:
> > I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different
from
> > RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
>
> For the most part, studying the FreeBSD source tree is a good
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Drew Tomlinson wrote:
> > I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different from
> > RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
>
> RELENG_X_Y_BP is the point on RELENG_X where the RELENG_X_Y branch was
> created. RELENG_X_Y_0_RELEASE is t
Drew Tomlinson wrote:
> I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different from
> RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
For the most part, studying the FreeBSD source tree is a good lesson
in how to be clever in your use of CVS. The only place it really
falls down is in the lack of vendor tagging f
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Drew Tomlinson wrote:
> I'm just trying to understand. :) How is RELENG_X_Y_BP different from
> RELENG_X_Y_RELEASE?
RELENG_X_Y_BP is the point on RELENG_X where the RELENG_X_Y branch was
created. RELENG_X_Y_0_RELEASE is the point on the RELENG_X_Y branc
If memory serves me right, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Bruce A. Mah" wrote:
> > > either for a code slush,
> > > or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
> > > complete, which might take a while.
> >
> > Nope. The original poster asked about RELENG_* branches; they aren't
> > used t
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dave Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Difference between REL
"Bruce A. Mah" wrote:
> > either for a code slush,
> > or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
> > complete, which might take a while.
>
> Nope. The original poster asked about RELENG_* branches; they aren't
> used that way, which I'm sure you know.
???
http://www.freebsd.org
Dave Hayes writes:
> What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
"Branch point".
-Archie
__
Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If memory serves me right, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
> > What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
>
> Branch Point.
>
> It means the code has been branched,
Yes.
> either for a code slush,
> or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
> complete, which
If memory serves me right, Dave Hayes wrote:
> What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
It marks the "branch point" where the RELENG_* branch was created from
the HEAD.
Bruce.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the mess
Dave Hayes wrote:
> What does the _BP extension mean on the RELENG tags?
Branch Point.
It means the code has been branched, either for a code slush,
or for other work that may not make it back in until it's
complete, which might take a while.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTEC
30 matches
Mail list logo
