From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 3 18:18:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA02234 for current-outgoing; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:18:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell.uniserve.com (tom@shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA02229 for ; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (tom@localhost) by shell.uniserve.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA04823; Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:15:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.uniserve.com: tom owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 18:15:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: Michael Smith cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Make this a relese coordinator decision (was Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued) In-Reply-To: <199708040004.JAA16044@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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