Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:57:34 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <20160215175734.GM26283@home.opsec.eu> References: <56C1E579.30303@marino.st> <20160215172059.GL26283@home.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! > > So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support > > two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers > > involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would > > it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ? > > Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue. It's one that has dogged > FreeBSD for some time now i.e., to either A) manage change-control with a > long term perspective with the goal of growing or at least retaining the > installed base of end-users or B) with a short-term perspective for the > benefit of our generous and skilled developers. I've never met bapt, who implemented pkg, or bdrewery, but from what I can see, implementing pkg was not a short-term project for them. It was the only way out from the technical burden of the old scheme, they saw the problem, and went to solve it. If someone A wants someone B else to work harder for his own benefit: You can always hope that B is doing it, but you can not expect it. And it's a bit strange to disparage such a person with a snide remark like 'short-term perspective'. It's always easy to argue from the sideline. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160215175734.GM26283>