So, if it was too burdensome for the whole project to support two trees (that probably was the estimate for the core developers involved [and I'm not one of them]), why, do you think, would it have worked for a sub-fraction of the project ?
Thanks Kurt, for cutting to the core issue. It's one that has dogged FreeBSD for some time now i.e., to either A) manage change-control with a long term perspective with the goal of growing or at least retaining the installed base of end-users or B) with a short-term perspective for the benefit of our generous and skilled developers.
From a strictly end-user perspective I'd prefer if the skew went a little
more towards former (long-term planning) for both selfish (more FreeBSD jobs) and shared (more stability, better security, fewer bugs) goals. There's no getting around the budget, however, and hope that FreeBSD's long-term viability plays a larger part in at least the Foundation's efforts. Roger _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
