Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:48:26 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: Kurt Jaeger <lists@opsec.eu> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation In-Reply-To: <20160215172059.GL26283@home.opsec.eu> References: <56C1E579.30303@marino.st> <20160215172059.GL26283@home.opsec.eu>
| previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support > two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers > involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would > it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ? Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue. It's one that has dogged FreeBSD for some time now i.e., to either A) manage change-control with a long term perspective with the goal of growing or at least retaining the installed base of end-users or B) with a short-term perspective for the benefit of our generous and skilled developers. >From a strictly end-user perspective I'd prefer if the skew went a little more towards former (long-term planning) for both selfish (more FreeBSD jobs) and shared (more stability, better security, fewer bugs) goals. There's no getting around the budget, however, and hope that FreeBSD's long-term viability plays a larger part in at least the Foundation's efforts. Roger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?>