Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:15:12 -0400 From: <scratch65535@att.net> To: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Why FreeBSD ports should have branches by OS version Message-ID: <n8eokc5fafda8gedtvbhh7i0qdk83gur5q@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com> References: <CAO%2BPfDeFz1JeSwU3f21Waz3nT2LTSDAvD%2B8MSPRCzgM_0pKGnA@mail.gmail.com> <20170622121856.haikphjpvr6ofxn3@ivaldir.net> <dahnkctsm1elbaqlarl8b9euouaplqk2tv@4ax.com> <20170622141644.yadxdubynuhzygcy@ivaldir.net> <4jrnkcpurfmojfdnglqg5f97sohcuv56sv@4ax.com> <20170622211126.GA6878@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:11:26 -0500, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: >On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:32:45PM -0400, scratch65535@att.net wrote: >> My problem is that my industry experience tells me that reducing >> the frequency of port releases is practically *guaranteed* to be >> a Really Good Thing for everyone. > >I remember before we had the quarterly releases, and people on the >mailing lists complained constantly about the ports bits only being >available once per release, or rolling with -head. Mark, I can only suppose that those complainers are dilettantes of some sort who believe that having The Latest-And-Greatest Bits is a social-status enhancer. **Nobody** with real work to do ever willingly fools away time "fixing" what isn't broken. That's why there are still millions of XP boxes in daily use despite everything M$ has been able to do to force people to give them up. 's mise le meas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?n8eokc5fafda8gedtvbhh7i0qdk83gur5q>