From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Aug  3 16:20:49 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA25461
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell.uniserve.com (tom@shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA25447
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (tom@localhost)
	by shell.uniserve.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA04575;
	Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: shell.uniserve.com: tom owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 16:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.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: <3251.870637447@time.cdrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970803161657.4572A-100000@shell.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> >   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? :).

  Perhaps the limits can be set on what things can be broken?  After all
port compatibility doesn't require that much...

> 					Jordan
> 

Tom