Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 13:54:28 +0100 From: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> To: Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com> Subject: Re: Portupgrade confused about editors/emacs Message-ID: <20060106125428.GC79296@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> In-Reply-To: <20060106124508.GB14967@droopy.unibe.ch> References: <834B3A07-EC76-4645-8E1B-7ABEA4EC999A@submonkey.net> <43BE57E9.9060507@rogers.com> <43BE61C9.9060502@ebs.gr> <43BE63E7.4060209@rogers.com> <20060106124508.GB14967@droopy.unibe.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--gj572EiMnwbLXET9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:45:08PM +0100, Tobias Roth wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:34:47AM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote: > > Its not harsh, its reality. If you are going to contribute, don't=20 > > contribute broken code. You know that this is impossible to guarantee, right? > > If its broken, fix it. They are fixing it, which is what the original reply said. > > If you cant fix it, back=20 > > it out until its ready. I have been using freebsd since 2.x and i can= =20 > > tell you that the quality of freebsd is slowly declining, more and more= =20 > > broken code is being committed, and its not being address properly. This is such an overgeneralized statement that it's not even possible to address properly. If you think FreeBSD is not good enough for your needs, please don't use it, or contribute code/PRs to up the quality. > > A perfect example of this is the recent RCng commits to 6-STABLE. The= =20 > > ports are clearly not ready for this, yet its been committed and left.= =20 > > Now many ports refuse to work. This clearly breaks POLA. >=20 > I agree to the RCng example. How long was it in -CURRENT? Two weeks? > Then MFC it over the christmas season, when there is a high probability > that maintainers of affected ports might not be around to fix the mess? > Not good. Well, it is -STABLE. Despite the name, the -STABLE charter has always been 'it might have some bumps when MFCing large features but it should be OK to run it'. If you need absolute stability (like you seem to indicate by all of your loudly screaming posts), run -SECURITY (ie RELENG_6_0). Furthermore, implement some kind of test system where you can see what changes will do to your setup _before_ you run them in production. Even with -SECURITY you might be the first to run into some unanticipated problem; no-one can guarantee that something works on all weird setups in the wild. Note also that lots of people don't have issues (ie me), and that Doug en Brooks have been totally responsive to all reports, from where I can see. My EUR 0.02. --Stijn --=20 I have great faith in fools -- self confidence my friends call it. -- Edgar Allan Poe --gj572EiMnwbLXET9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDvmiEY3r/tLQmfWcRAu9vAJ4lGTGVs81NhftthDRLp9hF65UisACgjddi TtXx/uml38PsyGBoBU/uzIY= =S7QX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gj572EiMnwbLXET9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060106125428.GC79296>