Date: 04 Sep 2002 13:19:22 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: Joe Kelsey <joek@mail.flyingcroc.net> Cc: freebsd-gnome <freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mozilla 1.1 is stable *not* devel. Message-ID: <1031159963.407.12.camel@gyros.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <3D762C1D.4090609@flyingcroc.net> References: <3D762C1D.4090609@flyingcroc.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 11:51, Joe Kelsey wrote: > If you actually *read* the roadmap, it clearly shows a twin-track > approach to mozilla development, *both* tracks being *stable* releases. > > It is unfortunate that someone used the words "bleeding edge" on the > front page, which seems to have led you off into the woods on this > issue. If you had bothered to ask the mailing list about the issue > before plunging ahead, I would have posted sooner on this issue. > > Clearly, the roadmap shows *quarterly* stable releases of mozilla along > with long-term support for the 1.0 vendor branch. That means a > twin-track stable release. That means that the only viable alternative > for ports is to support mozilla10 as a stable port, and mozilla as > tracking the quarterly stable incrementation of mozilla. Any port which > chooses to depend on the vendor stable branch, should be made to depend > on mozilla10 (galeon comes to mind). Anyone who wants the latest stable > release of mozilla clearly wants to track the quarterly stable release > in the straight mozilla branch. This is how the mozilla port has > traditionally tracked, up until your sudden change. > > Please remove mozilla-devel as it is a complete misunderstanding on your > part of what the mozilla roadmap indicates. I have sent a note to > mozilla.org asking them to reconsider the unfortunate labeling of 1.1 as > "bleeding edge" as it is clearly more stable and reliable than 1.0. 1.0 > contains many instabilities and bugs, such as the DNS bug, major plugin > instability, freetype errors, etc. > > Your choice of port distinction for mozilla is unsupportable and was not > well considered, especially since you did it with no notice to anyone > other than that you claim you consulted unknown parties about it. > Please undo it and then make mozilla the quarterly stable release > tracking port and mozilla10 the vendor branch tracking port. You're obviously very charged up about this, but so far, you're the only one that has expressed any negative concerns over these changes. I'm sorry for not consulting _you_ over this decision, but the people I did consult, those who manage the ports tree, didn't object to my change. Like I said, if the general consensus is to change this, I will. I'm not opposed to making things easier for _people_ (read more than one), but I don't want to keep switching things, especially something as large as mozilla, on all users. But in the spirit of fair play, I'll send an email to ports@ asking for a referendum. I'm willing to admit I made a mistake, but so far, the feedback hasn't shown that to be the case. Joe > > /Joe > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message > -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1031159963.407.12.camel>