From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Sep  4 00:06:08 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA28832
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA28825;
          Wed, 4 Sep 1996 00:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.tfs.com (localhost.tfs.com [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08054; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:25:28 +0200 (MET DST)
To: "Frank E. Terhaar-Yonkers" <fty@mcnc.org>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: suggestion: Re: Latest Current build failure 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:53:06 EDT."
             <199609032053.QAA25476@robin.mcnc.org> 
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 08:25:28 +0200
Message-ID: <8052.841818328@critter.tfs.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In message <199609032053.QAA25476@robin.mcnc.org>, "Frank E. Terhaar-Yonkers" w
rites:
>
>How about a simple status report?  Like simply the CTM # and a one
>word status: "ng" (won't build), "builds" and "runs" (reasonably stable).
>One could then hold the CTM updates and only apply those up to a known
>stability point, waiting on those in-between.  The field doesn't bleed
>so much, and current still gets a reasonable shake out.  

This is what you, dear hacker, needs to decide for yourself by reading
the committers list.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@ref.tfs.com       TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.