Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 01:14:40 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) Message-ID: <199708050814.BAA15937@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <742.870702685@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* I agree, and that's why I've always felt that dropping support for * ports in our current release branch was a big mistake. Much of the * user base agreed and wondered why -current got all the new toys while * they were left to stagnate, told on one hand to avoid current due to * instability or lack of testing and then told on the other that they * couldn't have all the nifty new ports because that was purely a * -current feature. That was pre-2.2. Since 2.2.1R, we fully support both releases as well as 2.2-stable and 3.0-current (I'll probably drop 2.2.1R soon though...are there anybody still pulling those off wcarchive, Jordan?). We get submissions from people running either of those. * It also still comes as something of a shock to me that many of the * people in this discussion who have been vehemently defending the idea * of maintaining a -current ports collection also go strangely silent * when this point is brought up. I guess that when it comes right down * to it, developers will always defend their interests first but I'd * hoped we might at least be a little less *obvious* about that. :) I was suggesting we only support 2.2.[12]R, 2.2-stable from now on and drop 3.0-current. If the 3.0-current people (who often are the most active of the port contributors) cry when I take away their toys, it is totally understandable. :) Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708050814.BAA15937>