From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Aug  3 12:44:50 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA11900
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 12:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA11892
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 12:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA03255; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 12:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>,
        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 03 Aug 1997 11:37:46 PDT."
             <Pine.BSF.3.96.970803113010.3843B-100000@shell.uniserve.com> 
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 12:44:07 -0700
Message-ID: <3251.870637447@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>   Key point here.  Basically no one can stop developers from making
> current incompatible with stable.  Basically, if current developers agree
> not to break compatibility, the problem goes away.

As nice as that sounds, I think such an agreement would be ultimately
stifling (remember: current was formed exactly so that such concerns
would not be an issue - where did we lose this along the way? :).

					Jordan