At 1996-07-25 16:29 +0000, Guy Maor wrote: >On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Michael Shields wrote: > >> Shouldn't all non-cosmetic bugs [in buzz] be fixed? > >No, only serious bugs and security holes. Otherwise there would be no >difference betweem rex and buzz. The definition of 'serious' is a bit >vague (basically a bug that most people agree is a major inconvenience) >but gzip providing a compress link definitely doesn't qualify.
I must have misunderstood buzz. I thought it would continue to be developed in parallel to rex, fixing all non-minor bugs. Examples of such bugs are perl not installing correctly and traceroute not working with a 1.2 kernel, both of which are easily fixed. If there isn't a tree that is as bug-free as possible, then I'll have to create a giant symlink farm myself containing pieces of rex and buzz in the most stable combination, and I really don't want to do that. Wouldn't it be better if everyone could benefit from such a tree, and we called it buzz-fixed? -- Shields, CrossLink.
