From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec  1 15:32:13 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6232F16A419
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  1 Dec 2007 15:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from david@vizion2000.net)
Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net
	(77-99-36-42.cable.ubr04.chap.blueyonder.co.uk [77.99.36.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C02D13C4CE
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Sat,  1 Dec 2007 15:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from david@vizion2000.net)
Received: by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix, from userid 1007)
	id 658B11CC46; Sat,  1 Dec 2007 07:49:01 -0800 (PST)
From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net>
Organization: Voice and Vision
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 07:49:00 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <33640.194.74.82.3.1196149681.squirrel@galain.elvandar.org>
	<20071201132508.GA33039@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
	<20071201135821.GK22121@graf.pompo.net>
In-Reply-To: <20071201135821.GK22121@graf.pompo.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200712010749.01173.david@vizion2000.net>
Subject: Re: duration of the ports freeze
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:32:13 -0000

On Saturday 01 December 2007 05:58:21 Thierry Thomas wrote:
> On Sat  1 dec 07 at 14:25:08 +0100, Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
>
>  wrote:
> > The ports freeze is intended to make sure the ports tree is in a stable
> > and well tested state for the release.  Updating major ports always carry
> > a great risk of breaking things thus defeating the point of the freeze.
>
> Anyway, if the freeze is too long, and if the new version is released
> several weeks after the thaw, very few will install these packages:
> a lot of updates will be committed, and many users will update their
> ports tree to install the new versions. This is very difficult to find a
> good compromise!

I do not think we need a compromise we need a different system. We need one  
that preserves continuity of support for existing systems while the new 
releases are testedin a way that does not adversely impact them. The priority 
needs to be the current user base not a desire to rush a new release out the 
door at all costs.

David