From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Oct 4 10:13: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327F137B401; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lcmpc4.epfl.ch (lcmpc4.epfl.ch [128.178.8.59]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1475F43E6A; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from henridf@lcavsun1.epfl.ch) Received: from localhost (henridf@localhost) by lcmpc4.epfl.ch (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g94HCtV12587; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:12:55 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: lcmpc4.epfl.ch: henridf owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:12:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Henri Dubois-Ferriere X-X-Sender: henridf@lcmpc4.epfl.ch Reply-To: Henri DF To: Ruslan Ermilov Cc: Dan Pelleg , Kris Kennaway , Henri DF , Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: unison-2.9.1 In-Reply-To: <20021004170623.GA4170@sunbay.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > > > More importantly, I was surprised that the 'official' port would be 2.9.20 > > > > which is still the beta version of unison. Is this intentional? > > > > > > You'd have to ask the maintainer, but I assume it is. > > > > > > > It is; 2.9.1 was marked forbidden by ru due do a data-corruption bug (which > > he experienced and reported to the dev list, btw). He also verified that > > 2.9.20 fixes the problem. > > > Well, I even suggested the fix, and they implemented it rather quickly. > I use unison in production, and have not so far seen any problems since > this critical bug was fixed. I use 2.9.20 now to synchronize 30G of > different type of data between 5 machines around the world, concurrently. > > > Since the unison project seems to have lost manpower (the UPenn students > > having graduated and the project lead turning his attention to other > > problems), my impression was that waiting for the next stable release would > > not be productive. > > All makes sense. My first impression on 2.9.20 was poor because of a (trivial) bug when i upgraded my linux machines to it, but i didn't realize you basically had only the choice between a beta and going back to a pre 2.9 release. So I guess that there is not 'official' policy on putting out betas in ports ? Thanks Henri To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message