From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 3 01:37:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA13996 for current-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 01:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail11.digital.com (mail11.digital.com [192.208.46.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA13991 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 01:37:20 -0700 (PDT) From: garyj@frt.dec.com Received: from cssmuc.frt.dec.com by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id EAA08201; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:33:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by cssmuc.frt.dec.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/14Nov95-0232PM) id AA05981; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:33:03 +0200 Message-Id: <9609030833.AA05981@cssmuc.frt.dec.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95 To: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message from rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) of Tue, 03 Sep 96 01:19:17 CDT. Reply-To: gjennejohn@frt.dec.com Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 03 Sep 96 10:33:03 +0200 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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