Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 08:54:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: gjennejohn@frt.dec.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.960903084856.17874C-100000@downlink.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <v02140b03ae51c338e0fc@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > >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. > > Well, "release" is not good enough for production. A release is static. > There are always things wrong with a release. They need to be fixed. Newer > versions of utilities need to be incorporated, etc. > > The present "stable" model could fill that slot. However, I would like to > see a bit more effort placed on its support. (I know it isn't as much "fun" > as working on "current") > > To me, there is a tradeoff between getting more "current" testers and > allowing "current" to fail to compile. I personally think that "current" > should be dropped. CVSup of the total tree is appropriate for the "bleeding > edger's". > At least they can then select which parts they wish to include in their build. > The rest can wait for Jordan's SNAP releases. You know, I'm just a little curious about the tone of the argument. While I do think that current has gone through some very bad periods of instability, I don't remember a time that it was as stable as it has been lately. The clear majority of problems in building current have been related to sup archive instability, not current being broke, I think your goals are laudable, but they don't seem to be addressing the problem right now. I am wondering if a rapid checksum program wouldn't be of more general use right now, so folks could elilminate archive problems before complaining that current is broke. I'm running ctm/cvs myself, and current has been incredibly stable. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and n3lxx, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 2.2 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.95.960903084856.17874C-100000>