Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:02:53 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: 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: <9346.870768173@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Aug 1997 00:47:56 PDT." <199708050747.AAA15842@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> One thing to note is that I'm not supervising a group of people hired > to do ports work from 9 to 5. It's not like I can yell "Ok guys! No > more -stable work! Go convert your machines to -current! Now fix the > bugs!". The porters have their machines to work on, and they are > either -stable or -current (and it seems we have a pretty good balance > now). So it's actually EASIER to work on both branches, and to make > sure things don't get entirely out of track wrt -current. Maybe we should start hiring people. :-) > Excuse me, but I have been supporting the 2.2.x folks from the very > beginning, and will continue to do so. I learned the lesson in the > 2.1.x fiasco. We should never have planned to release a new version > without updating ports and packages. (We realized that when 2.1.5 > went out, but by then it was too late to resync....) Sorry for the misinformation then. I guess I failed to take into account the fact that even though you don't commit stuff onto that *branch*, you're still #ifdef'ing things so that they work in both environments. Is that a fair summary? > With the same argument about -current moving faster and faster, it's > going to be harder and harder to catch the longer we let it run ahead > of us. Well, I'm open to suggestions. :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9346.870768173>