Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:01:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael R. Rudel" <mrr@aerosmith.dyn.ml.org> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970805115926.3943A-100000@aerosmith.dyn.ml.org> In-Reply-To: <199708050747.AAA15842@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Satoshi Asami wrote:
[...]
> Nobody said we need to support -current developers because they are
> more valuable than users. The fact is that many ports developers run
> -current for one reason or another, and there is no reason for me to
> not take their patches and modifications as long as the ports still
> work for -stable.
Well, if they are RUNNING -current, meaning they are (or should be, or
have some clue) a developer, they should be able to port most things on
their own, IMO, so really -current ports shouldn't be of the utmost
prioirty. If someone is running -stable, this means they don't have time
to port it themself, the knowledge, or something else
>
> And as Andreas and Steve P. (among others) pointed out, it is simply
> just a matter of effictive use of their time. I'd rather see fsmp
> commit in /sys than trying to fix up his tcl build by hand.
>
> * Satoshi has been petititioned more times than I can count to support
> * the 2.2.x folks and he's answered each time that trying to maintain an
> * active ports tree for *two* branches is just too much work. Now given
>
> Excuse me, but I have been supporting the 2.2.x folks from the very
> beginning, and will continue to do so. I learned the lesson in the
> 2.1.x fiasco. We should never have planned to release a new version
> without updating ports and packages. (We realized that when 2.1.5
> went out, but by then it was too late to resync....)
>
> * that, who does it make more sense to keep ports "active" for - the
> * -current users or the -stable users? Given the comparative rates of
> * change in each branch, which makes the most *sense* to support? Given
>
> Nobody is saying "I want ports-current!!! Drop ports-stable!!!".
> This argument is totally moot.
>
> * I'm not so pessimistic as this, given the long release cycles we have.
> * Once -current actually shows signs of becoming a released product, and
> * I don't see that happening anywhere before the end of the year, people
> * can take whatever was active in the RELENG_2_2 branch and retrofit it
> * into -current.
>
> With the same argument about -current moving faster and faster, it's
> going to be harder and harder to catch the longer we let it run ahead
> of us.
>
> Satoshi
>
--
Michael R. Rudel -=- FreeBSD: There are no limits -=- mrr@aerosmith.dyn.ml.org
FreeBSD aerosmith.dyn.ml.org 3.0-CURRENT
PGP Key Block: finger mrrpgp@aerosmith.dyn.ml.org
When you are born your afraid of the darkness ...
Then your afraid of the light ...
I'm not afraid when I dance with my shadows ...
This time I'm gonna get it right ...
-- Aerosmith: Taste of India
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970805115926.3943A-100000>