Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 06:56:44 -0500 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: gjennejohn@frt.dec.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <v02140b03ae51c338e0fc@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>IMO production level means release, not -current. I don't think that >we can expect to grow a market based on -current, that's what the >releases are for. People who want to be on the bleeding-edge and use >-current have to enter this particular "hell" with open eyes. Using >-current isn't for the faint of heart or newbies. I've been running >-current for years and have never encountered a problem which wasn't >quickly remedied in the tree or which I couldn't work around with >little effort. > >I personally don't see investing a lot of time or resources to >guarantee that -current is ALWAYS compilable. A hiccough now and >then is what one has to expect and be prepared to accept when using >-current. Well, "release" is not good enough for production. A release is static. There are always things wrong with a release. They need to be fixed. Newer versions of utilities need to be incorporated, etc. The present "stable" model could fill that slot. However, I would like to see a bit more effort placed on its support. (I know it isn't as much "fun" as working on "current") To me, there is a tradeoff between getting more "current" testers and allowing "current" to fail to compile. I personally think that "current" should be dropped. CVSup of the total tree is appropriate for the "bleeding edger's". At least they can then select which parts they wish to include in their build. The rest can wait for Jordan's SNAP releases.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v02140b03ae51c338e0fc>