Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 03:50:17 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Wolfgang Helbig <helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De>, andreas@klemm.gtn.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Current is currently really a mess (was: Re: Tk/Tcl broken(?)) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970804033755.26184A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> In-Reply-To: <4492.870649823@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > Satoshi has been petititioned more times than I can count to support > the 2.2.x folks and he's answered each time that trying to maintain an > active ports tree for *two* branches is just too much work. Now given > that, who does it make more sense to keep ports "active" for - the > -current users or the -stable users? Given the comparative rates of > change in each branch, which makes the most *sense* to support? Given > the size of the user populations for each, which is the most logical? > I'd say -stable for both answers and I have a very hard time beliving > why anyone would pick -current (and remember - you only get to pick > *one* branch due to workload concerns, something which has been > clarified on many many occasions and not worthy of yet another debate > at this time). To summarize, do you say that -current ports will be replaced by -stable port? If yes, you can remove me from all ports I maintain since I run -current only. I also ask to make separate -current ports tree for all ports I maintain and others (unknown) which I change sometimes, even if this new -current tree will not have portsmaster. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970804033755.26184A-100000>