Date: Tue, 03 Sep 96 10:33:03 +0200 From: garyj@frt.dec.com To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <9609030833.AA05981@cssmuc.frt.dec.com> In-Reply-To: Message from rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) of Tue, 03 Sep 96 01:19:17 CDT.
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
rkw@dataplex.net writes: > I guess I see that you and I have a different viewpoint of the "stability" > of things. > > In your model, "current" seems to be just some arbitrary collection of code. > whereas "stable" has been tested enough to make sure it compiles and runs. > You seem to leave out the "production" level which is supported. > > IMHO, it you want to build a following for the FreeBSD OS, you need to put > greater emphasis on supported stability. I think that it is this market > factor that you are hearing complain. > > IMO production level means release, not -current. I don't think that we can expect to grow a market based on -current, that's what the releases are for. People who want to be on the bleeding-edge and use -current have to enter this particular "hell" with open eyes. Using -current isn't for the faint of heart or newbies. I've been running -current for years and have never encountered a problem which wasn't quickly remedied in the tree or which I couldn't work around with little effort. I personally don't see investing a lot of time or resources to guarantee that -current is ALWAYS compilable. A hiccough now and then is what one has to expect and be prepared to accept when using -current. --- Gary Jennejohn (work) gjennejohn@frt.dec.com (home) Gary.Jennejohn@munich.netsurf.de (play) gj@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9609030833.AA05981>