Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:06:31 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -CURRENT in pretty good shape, after all Message-ID: <20020223140631.A38036@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202231035350.79221-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>; from julian@elischer.org on Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:35:44AM -0800 References: <20020223123524.A27146@unixdaemons.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202231035350.79221-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:35:44AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > that could change real soon! I certainly *hope* not. If you plan to break it, you plan to break it, but I hope you don't plan to render it unstable. There is a difference between breaking the build, breaking -CURRENT because of one thing you happened to have missed when you committed and breaking it for a prolonged period of time without actually knowing what broke it and then having to do `guess-work' and needless debugging because someone committed totally broken code. By -CURRENT's description, the former is acceptable, every once in a while, but the latter is not. The latter just leads to a lot of blood spillage and is evidence of a not-well-tested set of changes. So, it's acceptable to go: "Oh, I did this wrong and broke -CURRENT, let me fix it" every once in a while but it shouldn't be acceptable to go "euh, -CURRENT is broken and it's probably because of me but I have no friggin' clue how or why. I don't even know where to start looking." It's just common sense. > On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 06:24:39PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > > Thumbs up and big cheers to all of you (well, us) guys working on > > > -CURRENT. It's pretty stable and has been for a while now - and even > > > on my poor old 350 MHz K6-2, it performs well enough to make a kickass > > > desktop & development platform. Let's hope it'll only get better from > > > here on out :) > > > > Yep! Out of 3 FreeBSD machines I own, I now have 2 (the dual processor > > systems) running -CURRENT. I think it should finally be noted that > > -CURRENT effectively does meet its advertised form: "development > > bleeding edge version of FreeBSD" (as opposed to "[totally broke and > > bleeding] developer [for those who feel like it] version of FreeBSD."). > > > > > DES > > > -- > > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org > > > > -- > > Bosko Milekic > > bmilekic@unixdaemons.com > > bmilekic@FreeBSD.org -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@unixdaemons.com bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020223140631.A38036>