Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:56:54 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, William Bentley <William@FutureCIS.com>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, WBentley@FutureCIS.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle Message-ID: <4F1707E6.4020905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201181147450.6287@sea.ntplx.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112211415580.19710@kozubik.com> <1326756727.23485.10.camel@Arawn> <4F14BAA7.9070707@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1201181034580.51158@fledge.watson.org> <4F16A5B8.2080903@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1201181147450.6287@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 18/01/2012 19:13 Daniel Eischen said the following: > "someone who owns a branch..." - If you cut release N.0, do not > move -current to N+1. Keep -current at N for a while, prohibiting > ABI changes, and any other risky changes. If a developer wants to > do possibly disruptive work, they can do it from their own repo. I am totally against this. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F1707E6.4020905>