Fast releases demand binary updates.. (Was: Release schedule
jrhett at svcolo.com
Fri Jan 6 03:30:40 PST 2006
> > I just know that core has either struck it down or been Silent.
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:32:26PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> The latter is an entirely different case from the former, and you've been
> claiming core has done the former. This, and the above, tell me that
> you're not interested in checking your facts before making an accusation.
> (And, as well, that you do not even understand the role the core plays
> in the project. Hint: it is not primarily technical in nature.)
I agree with most of what you said here. This was known and understood.
Agreement on direction is what I was expecting, er, dreaming about. Not
technical issues. Sorry if that surprises you.
But I have to take objection to this:
> As a final observation, FreeBSD is rarely advanced by postings of the
> form 'FreeBSD must do XYZ'. This is primarily because volunteers work on
> whatever they feel interested in doing with their free time, rather than
> the priorities anyone else sets for them.
First, this is obvious and true for all open source projects. But no,
FreeBSD _never_ advances because someone writes code that does something
well. FreeBSD _only_ advances when the core developers agree that this
thing is worthy of their interest.
And I'm not even saying this is a bad thing. It just means that writing
code without buy-in from the core developers is GUARANTEED to be a waste of
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
More information about the freebsd-stable