Repository Copy question on Porter's FAQ
o Reviewers wrote the committed version
Reviewed by: adamw, ceri, steve, tom,
"Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com>,
Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
Describe how to commit on ncvs.FreeBSD.org using remote CVS.
Add a note to NOT use the main repository host as your personal
cvs server, as inspired by peter's mail to developers@ a while back.
Refer to the cvsup distribution method and cvsup-master instead and
give an example of an "fcvs" alias, as suggested by many committers.
Reword or remove various paragraphs about not modifiying the repository
yourself, which is no longer possible, since only repomeisters have
access to ncvs.FreeBSD.org.
Remove the paragraph about CVSUMASK, which no longer applies.
FreeBSD implementation on it at production quality, and x86-64-specific
code is in progress in a combination of the main FreeBSD CVS repository
and Perforce. Once x86-64 native support is appropriately improved, we
can migrate it to Tier 2.
Requested by: obrien
Approved by: core
status of various architectural platforms and requirements for
support and development of those platforms. This policy distinguishes
systems into four tiers:
Tier 1: Fully Supported Architectures
Tier 2: Developmental Architectures
Tier 3: Experimental Architectures
Tier 4: Unsupported Architectures
In addition, the Core Team has also approved a policy regarding how
the status of a hardware architecture may be formally changed. This
policy is new, and subject to review, comment, and modification as
appropriate. The details of this policy are implemented in this
change to the FreeBSD Committer's Handbook, which all committers
are encouraged to read and review.
Note: Although sparc64 is currently listed as a 'Developmental
Architecture', it is expected that it will become a 'Fully Supported
Architecture' prior to FreeBSD 5.0. Likewise, it is likely that
ia64 will become a 'Fully Supported Architecture' prior to the
release.
as follows:
RELENG_3 no longer a noteworthy tag.
Refer to repository meisters and SO team more consistently, less
dependence on individuals.
Don't refer to core as "we".
Comment to help out doc translation teams.
Move myself to RE team and consolidate "Who's Who" listings accordingly.
Security branch changes need to be approved by SO or RE teams.
Add mentions of developers list, where appropriate.
Wording tweaks.
Approved by: jhb
There is one remaining place in the fdp-primer, but that needs
a bit more work.
Inspired by: docs/36462 (Gary W. Swearingen <swear@blarg.net>)
Reviewed by: ceri, trhodes
which discusses the notion of areas of authority for the CVS repository,
the parties responsible for each area and allocating commit rights for it,
and general practices for expanding the scope of a commit bit to new
areas of the tree. Throw in some text reminding everyone that review
of source code is always a good idea.
Approved by: core@
