Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 08:34:23 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fallout from the CVS discussion Message-ID: <CAF6rxg=mm9OeVDX-dYC=FwnAZ-6pGjcRad=Gm9-mLx3QiPtqVQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120916053523.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <CAF6rxg=qVUHe7tc9_AXgRdUtkoHOrixwNw-GsN7C7_r0FR990A@mail.gmail.com> <20120916053523.GJ37286@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 September 2012 01:35, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: >> However, -CURRENT is not meant to be a production system. > > It is simply not true. My statement was true, but does not disagree with the content below. Production system != Production Grade. > CURRENT shall never be knowingly put into a state > where it cannot be used for the 'production-grade' use, whatever it > means. Agreed. > We do accept changes are so disruptive that some unknown fallout > is expected, since otherwise developers cannot make any significant > progress. The point of my statement is that it perfectly acceptable to change behavior in HEAD in a non-backwards compatible way. In particular no systems running -CURRENT are expected to be "critical functioning". People that track -HEAD are expected to be able to deal with the sorts of problems that occur from "drastic change." > But introducing known breakage is simply not acceptable. Doing so shrinks > the already limited testing base we have for HEAD. Agreed. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxg=mm9OeVDX-dYC=FwnAZ-6pGjcRad=Gm9-mLx3QiPtqVQ>