Andrey, If the fallout from your changes broke a bunch of things in -current, then we can expect the fallout in -stable to be even worse.
Your query about bug reports is a straw man as anticipating a lot of fallout which has already occured does not require that I actually have a bug report. The end result is more users being bitten because a discussion regarding this has obviously not taken place. And yes, you're being a jerk. :) -Alfred * Andrey Chernov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070501 01:45] wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:30:32AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:48:28AM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 06:39:57PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > Using the strategy "commit to -current then suffer the fallout" > > > > is pretty bogus. > > > > > > The only possible. Nobody can run all ports at once. Kris already promise > > > all ports build results with those changes in, lets see. > > > > There have been many runs, in the past, with src changes put into the > > cluster and then tested, before the src changes were committed. This is > > the process that is always used to get new versions of gcc into the tree, > > for instance. > > This ones are not such vital as gcc changes which can break all programs > at once, so can't be ever nearly compared with. For what we have --current > for, if every change will go to the cluster first? > > And the question remains: > Is something currently broken _for_you_? I still have no reports. > > -- > http://ache.pp.ru/ -- - Alfred Perlstein _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
