From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 27 01:06:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528F737B401; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03.attbi.com [204.127.202.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925B843F3F; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:06:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.dougb.net (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (sccrmhc03) with SMTP id <20030427080651003006bcmre>; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 08:06:51 +0000 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 01:06:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <20030426231507.K657@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Message-ID: <20030427010221.H657@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030426154030.M13476@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3EAB12AC.8050707@btc.adaptec.com><3EAB7486.2060107@btc.adaptec.com> <20030426231507.K657@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD-rc@yahoogroups.com cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-rc] Re: RFC: Removal of the old rc system from -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 08:06:53 -0000 On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > Before you have another knee-jerk REaction to my proposal, please stop and > think about how much different this scenario is than something like a > kernel interface or binary. It occurs to me that this may have come out sounding a lot harsher than I meant it. I'm certainly not implying that Scott is a bonehead, that's obviously not the case. This situation actually is very different than other release engineering concerns, which is why I'm saying, "stop and think" about it. It also occurred to me that part of the problem here is that I failed to make these differences clear in my original post. I think it's just a case of being so close to the code that I had assumed it was obvious to everyone. :) Hope this helps, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection