Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:14:04 +0100 From: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk> To: sheldonh@FreeBSD.org Cc: jobaldwi@vt.edu, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/12595: [PATCH] New FAQ Entry: "Why shouldn't I just go ahead and run -current?" Message-ID: <19990712231404.A18590@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> In-Reply-To: <199907122128.OAA67417@freefall.freebsd.org>; from sheldonh@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 02:28:55PM -0700 References: <199907122128.OAA67417@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 02:28:55PM -0700, sheldonh@FreeBSD.org wrote:
> Synopsis: [PATCH] New FAQ Entry: "Why shouldn't I just go ahead and run -current?"
>
> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
> State-Changed-By: sheldonh
> State-Changed-When: Mon Jul 12 14:26:12 PDT 1999
> State-Changed-Why:
> The submitter and I are in agreement that Daniel's FAQ entry wasn't
> really intended as a serious FAQ that would actually reduce the number
> of questions asked on -current or -hackers. :-)
I'm in two minds about this -- I can see your point, that the sort of
people it's aimed at probably won't read it anyway, but. . . it might
make a difference. Given that we don't know whether it will or not,
and since the submission would drop straight in to the FAQ with no
changes required, isn't it a better idea just to put it in anyway?
I mean, what do we lose by doing so?
N
--
[intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed,
non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs
the links.
-- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990712231404.A18590>