From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 5 09:01:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA19955 for current-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ox.ismi.net (root@ox.ismi.net [206.31.56.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA19939 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aerosmith.dyn.ml.org (mrr@pm5-25.ismi.net [207.51.208.196]) by ox.ismi.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA22655; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 11:56:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:01:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michael R. Rudel" To: Satoshi Asami 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(?)) In-Reply-To: <199708050747.AAA15842@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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