From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 12 01:12:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC1616A4CE; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:12:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9801343D39; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:12:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from lap (c-24-130-110-32.we.client2.attbi.com[24.130.110.32]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20040812011208013001cvb6e>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:12:09 +0000 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:12:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: <8576C147-EBF7-11D8-887A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> Message-ID: <20040811180725.E54010@ync.qbhto.arg> References: <8576C147-EBF7-11D8-887A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed cc: "src-committers@FreeBSD.org" cc: "re@FreeBSD.org" cc: "cvs-src@FreeBSD.org" cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" cc: Ceri Davies Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/pkg_install/add Makefile add.hextract.c Makefilesrc/usr.sbin/pkg_install/delete Makefile delete.h main.c perform.c ... X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:12:09 -0000 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > Before I get a million replies to this commit: When anyone from re@ thinks it > is worth the effort, I will add an -c option to the C pkg_version code ASAP. I am happy to let re@ make the decision regarding the proper course of action here. > I believe backing this out won't be beneficial for -STABLE users, since > they'll loose a lot of features (and speed). Has anyone on this thread *ever* > used that option? None of these arguments are relevant, sorry. One of the key principles for a -stable branch is not violating trust with our users that "how things work is how they will always work" without a really good reason. "It's better, stronger, faster!" is not a really good reason. One of the key reasons for the failure of the 3.x branch was that we called it "stable" but we kept messing around with it. This dramatically delayed the uptake of the branch, which caused a lot of problems to stay problems such that a majority of our user base went from 2.x to 4.x instead of using 3.x at all. We were dangerously close to making this same mistake in 5.x, but I think that the current re@ group has done a pretty good job of limiting the number of things that might bite us in the butt down the road. I'd still like to see the change to pkg_version backed out, and the old one restored. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection