Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:09:07 -0700 From: obrien@Nuxi.cs.ucdavis.edu (David E. O'Brien) To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <199609040909.CAA11993@relay.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <199609040447.AAA17307@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>; from hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca on Sep 4, 1996 0:47:46 -0400 References: <199609040447.AAA17307@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hoek@freenet.hamilton.on.ca writes: > In Email, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> wrote: > > > > If you've achieved nothing else, you've definitely made the point to > > me that we've got a serious image problem with -current these days, > > namely that it's entirely *too* visible. -current was truly never > > That's because you called it -current instead of something like > -experimental.... "current" is a word usually associated with generally > good things... "current" technology, "current" affairs... The "current" You've also got the problem that -current has evolved substantually beyond -release. At one time, -current was the way future of FBSD, full of "experiements". But, if you read the newsgroup/lists it quickly becomes appartent that in order to contribute hardly at all you need to be running -current. Often I've seen people wanting to try to get involved, and are told that they should submit diffs agaist -current because -current is too differnt from -release and the integration effort is too much. The requirement to be running -current has even crept into porting. With the latest changes (moving of libs from /usr/ports to /usr/lib for example), not even that form of contribution hasn't been touched. -- David (obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609040909.CAA11993>