Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:27:16 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: proff@suburbia.net (Julian Assange) Cc: terry@lambert.org, sos@FreeBSD.ORG, rkw@dataplex.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <199611230027.RAA16284@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199611230023.LAA26899@suburbia.net> from "Julian Assange" at Nov 23, 96 11:23:16 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sometimes keeping contributors happy and contributing is more > important than quality control styles, and was why I thought we had a > -current vs -stable. I definitely agree with this statement. How is it being implemented? The -current vs -stable dichotomy is not enough to let people push ahead ignoring some of the bad decisions Lite2 made. Good having to get in line behind bad only codifies bad and disenfranchises good... If there were a difference between "core-current" and "core-stable" and/or "committers-current" and "committers-stable", I might agree with you that the -current vs -stable dichotomy addresses the issue. The only difference between the two at present, however, is the value of a branch tag. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611230027.RAA16284>