Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970803181521.4813B-100000@shell.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <199708040004.JAA16044@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Michael Smith wrote: > Tom stands accused of saying: > > > > On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, David Holloway wrote: > > > > > how different do ports-current and ports-stable have to be? > > > (unless 2.x and 3.x are completely non portable > > > between each other, in which case.. that is a mistake) > > > > Exactly. Current developers need to agree to not break compatibility, > > and the problem is solved. Some ports (very few), that need access to > > various kernel may need to broken, but the number of such should be small. > > Whacko. While we're at it, let's just rename this list "msdos-current". What? What exactly are you trying to say here? > -- > ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ > ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ > ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ > ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ > ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[ > Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970803181521.4813B-100000>