From owner-freebsd-stable  Tue Mar 18 16:33:22 1997
Return-Path: <owner-stable>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA16452
          for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:33:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA16442
          for <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.4/8.7.3) id QAA17652; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703190032.QAA17652@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: rkw@dataplex.net, imp@village.org, stable@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: <199703181334.FAA16165@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: ports-release (Re: -current and -stable mailing lists)
From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Sorry I didn't catch this the first time.  I read this mail only
because it came from Jordan.  (He may not be always right, but he sure
says a lot of amusing things. :)

IMO it's a very bad idea to tack in a somewhat irrelevant comment at
the end of a long winding mail about an ongoing debate that many
people have already started deleting whole.

 *  > IMHO, one thing that is very discouraging to contributions is the
 *  > "ports" situation. I feel that the strong effort toward the 3.0
 *  > branch, even before 2.2 was released, discourages contributions
 *  > to that major part of the system. 

I have no idea where that "even before 2.2 was released" came from.
The ports tree has been practically bound to 2.2 as soon as it was
branched, and I have not allowed any change that breaks a build on a
2.2 machine.

 * 					You don't even have a workable
 *  > mechanism to support ports for 2.2, much less 2.1. As a result,

It's not as much as a problem of mechanism, as it's a matter of human
resources.  We need another person that can do the work (both in
quality and quantity) that I'm doing.  And if there exists such a
person, do we really want him tied up to maintaining the 2.2 tree
instead of working on the -current ports?

I've been opposed to the parallel development of two branches from the
very beginning for this reason.  But all that said, we are now working 
on a mechanism to allow us to keep the 2.2 ports up to date.

Satoshi