Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:24:56 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@vector.enet> To: Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? Message-ID: <199512181324.OAA11252@vector.enet> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:36:30 %2B0100." <199512171736.SAA03816@knobel.gun.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Reference: > From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> > Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? > Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:36:30 +0100 (MET) > Message-id: <199512171736.SAA03816@knobel.gun.de> .... > If changes doesn't compile, then it's a sign for either > - not tested or > - tested in a too small scope IMHO Then it's time for the commiter to rectify an inappropriate commit ... fast, & then get some sleep :-) > Current should be brought into a state, that more people are > motivated to sup and install it. The goal is, to get some more > good programmers into the boat. Nice idea, just one reservation: I recommend CTM :-) It puts less additional strain on freefall, & needs less local resources too :-) ( A big increase in sup'ers just now would be a problem until we increase sup server sites (in progress)) Julian -- Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512181324.OAA11252>