From owner-freebsd-current Sat Feb 23 11: 6:51 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from angelica.unixdaemons.com (angelica.unixdaemons.com [209.148.64.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A54937B404 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:06:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from angelica.unixdaemons.com (bmilekic@localhost.unixdaemons.com [127.0.0.1]) by angelica.unixdaemons.com (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g1NJ6Vh4038815; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:06:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by angelica.unixdaemons.com (8.12.2/8.12.1/Submit) id g1NJ6V7J038814; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:06:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 14:06:31 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Julian Elischer Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -CURRENT in pretty good shape, after all Message-ID: <20020223140631.A38036@unixdaemons.com> References: <20020223123524.A27146@unixdaemons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from julian@elischer.org on Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 10:35:44AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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