From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Feb 12 1: 0: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from onizuka.vmunix.org (onizuka.vmunix.org [194.221.152.19]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A0E3E52; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:00:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (1551 bytes) by onizuka.vmunix.org via sendmail with stdio (sender: ) (ident using unix) id for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:59:55 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: From: torstenb@vmunix.org (Torsten Blum) Subject: Re: zsh re-org. In-Reply-To: <20000211224848.A92177@jade.chc-chimes.com> from Bill Fumerola at "Feb 11, 2000 10:48:48 pm" To: billf@chc-chimes.com (Bill Fumerola) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:59:55 +0100 (CET) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, shige@FreeBSD.org, torstenb@FreeBSD.org, asami@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Bill Fumerola wrote: > I believe that the way that zsh is being handled should be flipped around. > ports/shells/zsh should be 3.1.6 > ports/shells/zsh-devel should be retired (after making shells/zsh 3.1.6) > I don't believe we need a 3.0.7 version of zsh in the tree at all. Zsh 3.1.x is still beta and as long as this is the case I am, as the maintainer of ports/shells/zsh, _strongly_ against this. Having a stable shell is IMHO the most important thing. If anyone wants to play with new and cool features, that's fine for me. That's why we have zsh-devel. Replacing ports/shells/zsh with -devel forces everyone else to use a beta. This is definately not a good idea. -tb -- OSI ist nicht deswegen tot, weil es nicht vernünftig war, sondern weil sein Mitbewerb praxisnäher ist. Man könnte sagen, das ist der Sieg des ingenieur- mäßigen Designs über das akademische Design. -- Helge Oldach über den OSI Protokollstack in To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message