Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:02:23 -0500 From: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> To: Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: New rc.d code merge timing (Was: Re: Portupgrade confused about editors/emacs) Message-ID: <43C0568F.7020909@rogers.com> In-Reply-To: <20060107191202.GA18881@droopy.unibe.ch> References: <834B3A07-EC76-4645-8E1B-7ABEA4EC999A@submonkey.net> <43BE57E9.9060507@rogers.com> <43BE61C9.9060502@ebs.gr> <43BE63E7.4060209@rogers.com> <20060106124508.GB14967@droopy.unibe.ch> <20060106125428.GC79296@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20060106131231.GC14967@droopy.unibe.ch> <43BF7430.80509@FreeBSD.org> <20060107191202.GA18881@droopy.unibe.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tobias Roth wrote: > I can understand your position. Yes, I personally would have done it > differently but I also accept that there are good reasons behind a quick > MFC in this case. And since most people (including me) will not run > -STABLE on their production boxes, it may be not that much of a problem > if some ports startup scripts are broken for a while. Hopefully, all > problems have been uncovered once 6.1 will be shipped. > Shame on me for running -STABLE in production then. I've always done this though, but fortunately its never caused any serious problems. It is called STABLE after all. One question though, were the porters notified of the upcoming changes? And were they provided with the appropriate information to write the RC scripts before the merge?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43C0568F.7020909>