[ntp:questions] pool configuration directive on Windows
martin.burnicki at meinberg.de
Mon Mar 10 10:48:56 UTC 2008
Harlan Stenn wrote:
>>>> In article <fqpbr5$3c2$1 at scrotar.nss.udel.edu>, "David L. Mills"
>>>> <mills at udel.edu> writes:
> David> Martin, Things are very much worse than I thought. My understanding
> David> was that the release version was divorced from the development
> David> version periodically so the two at one time would be coincident and
> David> no release version would occur until the next divorce.
> This is what happens.
> And if a "significant" bug is found in -stable I make a "patch" release
> and fix it, generally because it will be "too long" to wait for the next
> time -dev is release as -stable and the divorce cycle starts again.
I agree this is a good way to handle this, so new features can "seetle"
before they go into a "stable" release, which is what the name "-stable"
> David> It makes no sense and is a waste of resources to maintain two
> David> historic tracks well over a year divorced and separately updated.
> You don't have the full picture. The way it works now is minimal effort
> and is quite effective.
> It is a most workable and efficient solution, which nicely handles your
> stated position that you, Dave, will *only* work on -dev.
> David> Now the trackers have to know (a) when the latest divorce occured,
> David> (b) when the latest release was carved and (c) what's in the
> David> development branch.
> I'm not sure I follow or agree with what you say here, but all of the
> changes are listed in the ChangeLog, and they are quite easy to locate and
> The most difficult problem is that you (Dave) often make changes where I
> cannot easily create ChangeLog notes. You sometimes describe your changes
> in an email message to hackers@, but that doesn't make it any easier for
> me to get these changes into the ChangeLog file.
Yes, this is where improvements were appreciated.
For example, see the current thread "Windows Time with NTPv4" where Dave had
already supplied a workaround back in 2002 (see the links in my post
However, if you have a look at the Changelog file in ntp-dev I don't know
how to locate this or find out in which version this had been made
available. Searching the changelog for "w32time", "symmetric", "peer", or
"client" does not yield the desired result.
Since all the changelog entries are without date, it's even hard to
correlate the version numbers with the dates of the NG articles or mails on
the hackers list.
> Given your desire to have the revision control system be completely
> invisible to you, at the moment the status quo is the best solution we
> Martin has already given me some suggestions on how to improve this,
.. one of which was to include at least the release dates in the changelog.
> and I
> will be following his ideas.
More information about the questions