Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:32:02 -0800 (PST) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: rkw@dataplex.net, imp@village.org, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: ports-release (Re: -current and -stable mailing lists) Message-ID: <199703190032.QAA17652@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <199703181334.FAA16165@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry I didn't catch this the first time. I read this mail only because it came from Jordan. (He may not be always right, but he sure says a lot of amusing things. :) IMO it's a very bad idea to tack in a somewhat irrelevant comment at the end of a long winding mail about an ongoing debate that many people have already started deleting whole. * > 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. I have no idea where that "even before 2.2 was released" came from. The ports tree has been practically bound to 2.2 as soon as it was branched, and I have not allowed any change that breaks a build on a 2.2 machine. * You don't even have a workable * > mechanism to support ports for 2.2, much less 2.1. As a result, It's not as much as a problem of mechanism, as it's a matter of human resources. We need another person that can do the work (both in quality and quantity) that I'm doing. And if there exists such a person, do we really want him tied up to maintaining the 2.2 tree instead of working on the -current ports? I've been opposed to the parallel development of two branches from the very beginning for this reason. But all that said, we are now working on a mechanism to allow us to keep the 2.2 ports up to date. Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703190032.QAA17652>