From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 23:17:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C92106566C for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:17:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mozolevsky@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A488FC15 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:17:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbdx13 with SMTP id x13so3027210pbd.13 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:17:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=iC7PlmnunGVYA6f9lDnVc6ziOROjWq9w1rNr09DEDww=; b=mERi+mL2m1dx5J7xDlLVqwYpc9v55NhhAoFWzSnt8mAJlEev+swHJa7egvxMOlefLW xfMfaRGvlx4ujY52g48s95hszr9KSCgoSdE01ufs+ZLbR7lemmVXnZXcebswERdBtt0v vZs9p5v3NsUToSFOUL9YEpKOJ8KtrqnfEvl60= Received: by 10.68.212.73 with SMTP id ni9mr38632250pbc.82.1326842252183; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:17:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mozolevsky@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.28.199 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:16:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Igor Mozolevsky Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:16:51 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hKZscgJY4Zcw0nFFDrSfqdjroaw Message-ID: To: Adrian Chadd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 23:17:32 -0000 On 17 January 2012 23:01, Adrian Chadd wrote: > If you'd like to see: > > ... more frequent releases? then please step up and help with all the > infrastructure needed to roll out test releases, including building > _all_ the ports. A lot of people keep forgetting that a "release" is > "build all the ports for all the supported platforms". I don't know this so I'm asking: does fixing a port to work on a pending release involve substantial changes (as in functionality cf. cosmetic) to the "core" or just patching the port to work with the core? If latter, maybe it's worthwhile uncoupling the two (core OS and ports)? -- Igor M. :-)