From owner-freebsd-small Thu Apr 6 10:29:55 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Received: from janus.hosting4u.net (janus.hosting4u.net [209.15.2.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D24A937B881 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:29:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from albert@achtung.com) Received: (qmail 18597 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2000 17:29:50 -0000 Received: from mercury.hosting4u.net (HELO achtung.com) (209.15.2.5) by janus.hosting4u.net with SMTP; 6 Apr 2000 17:29:50 -0000 Received: from achtung.com ([207.13.193.130]) by achtung.com ; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:29:45 -0500 Message-ID: <38ECBBDC.416550EE@achtung.com> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 09:31:24 -0700 From: Albert Yang X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Builds of PicoBSD References: <200004042058.OAA71025@harmony.village.org> <95502856401@mercury.hosting4u.net> <38ECB360.9464DE36@whetstonelogic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'm all for the write, patch, test, feedback, make better process. But if I'm behind on reading the list, or delete an email here or there on accident, then I'm lost as all the patches go flying by. All I'm saying is, if post-patched pico disks are posted on the site, then we can ALL test them and have some sort of version control (sort of) on it. I'd hate to test something, and post it as a problem, and have someone else email me saying "This was fixed in the patch" and I reply with "which patch?" etc... That's not a good feedback cycle. Thanks for the offer Patrick. We need a lot of documentation as well.. Albert To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message