From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 12 16:41:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19B916A4D0; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:41:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.50.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE5743D49; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:41:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from dhcp-13.local ([172.16.0.13] helo=dhcp-10.local) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1BvIe5-0008uD-Vm; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:41:44 +0200 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:43:21 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) To: Doug Barton From: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: <20040812085554.M773@ync.qbhto.arg> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:47:17 +0000 cc: "Bruce A. Mah" cc: Ken Smith cc: re@freebsd.org cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: Will Andrews cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org cc: Ceri Davies Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add Makefile add.h extract.c futil.c main.c perform.c pkg_add.1 src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/create Makefile create.h main.c perform.c pkg_create.1 pl.c src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/delete Makefile delete.h main.c perform.c ... X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:41:46 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > I find this line of reasoning very interesting in light of the > disagreement I'm currently having with eik about repo copying a port > I'm working on. On the one hand, you and he are arguing that it's > perfectly ok to break POLA in -stable because the new stuff is better, > and the old stuff sucked anyway. Ehm, could you point me to the post where I said that? I seem to suffer from amnesia. Or is this your interpretion of "I will add an -c option to the C pkg_version code ASAP. I believe backing this out won't be beneficial for -STABLE users, since they'll loose a lot of features (and speed)." [...] > This is exactly the opposite of what it should be. In the past, the > very definition of a -stable branch included that features were NEVER > removed. It doesn't matter how much YOU as an individual developer > don't like a feature, you have absolutely no way of knowing how many > users depend on it, how they are using it, etc. What is your point here? I made a mistake that I recognized only in the last moment, and I'm working on fixing it. So? -Oliver [stuff unrelated to this thread deleted. please reply to ]