Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:43:21 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net> 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 ... Message-ID: <B86FCD54-EC7E-11D8-887A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040812085554.M773@ync.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AFDC3328-EC00-11D8-887A-00039312D914>; ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B86FCD54-EC7E-11D8-887A-00039312D914>