Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:34:46 -0800 (PST)
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To:        Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
Cc:        Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: -current and -stable mailing lists
Message-ID:  <199703181334.FAA16165@time.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: <l03010d00af542867217f@[208.2.87.4]>
References:  <l03010d00af53b835c5a5@[208.2.87.4]> <3162.858659199@time.cdrom.com> <l03010d00af542867217f@[208.2.87.4]>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth writes:
 > See! Despite the load protestrations to the contrary, 2.1 IS NOT
DEAD.

And I never said it was.  Why are you belaboring the obvious?  If I
thought 2.1 was truly dead, would I and others be putting in the work
to release 2.1.6/2.1.7/2.1.7.1/??? - this would seem to be a wholly
redundant and unnecessary crusade you're on here.

 > I think that a lot of the effect that you are seeing is a direct result
 > of all the insistance that 2.1.5 was the end of the 2.1 branch.

I entirely disagree.  I think it's apathy, and I think you're just as
guilty of it as everyone else here - I haven't seen any -stable
patches from you, anyway.

 > By the repeated loud crys "2.1 is dead", it becomes a self fulfilling
 > claim. Why should I go to the effort to prepare something when I have
 > to sent it to someone you is proclaiming that what I would be doing
 > is a futile effort?

Only you seem to think this, Richard, and claiming that you'd have
worked on this if only we hadn't soured the milk is pure hogwash.  You
haven't put your money where your mouth is where 2.1 is concerned and
now you're trying to put the blame elsewhere.  I don't buy it for a
second.

 > IMHO, one thing that is very discouraging to contributions is the
 > "ports" situation. I feel that the strong effort toward the 3.0
 > branch, even before 2.2 was released, discourages contributions
 > to that major part of the system. You don't even have a workable
 > mechanism to support ports for 2.2, much less 2.1. As a result,

Talk to Satoshi.  Help him evolve some way of supporting multiple
branches of development in a way that doesn't overload his ports
developers and I'm sure he'll be reasonable.

						Jordan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703181334.FAA16165>