randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Apr 3 07:53:30 PDT 2006
On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 07:38 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I was aware of all the releases. However, I can't agree with the
> statement that the CVS is always stable. That implies 100% bug and
> regression-free development. But that's the developer's line, not
At this point it could be (wrongly) considered us arguing instead of
discussing, so (and not to have the 'last say', as I don't believe in
that) I'd just like to counter one point, then I'll probably let others
discuss and make a decision. Understand, I don't care either way, I
just see the tremendous amount of "issues" (that's what the Tidy devs
call bugs) have been fixed in the last 5 months.
As far as it being the developer's line and not mine (ours), this is
not true. That is why we are Editors. We are paid to make those
decisions. Whether to update to a dev version of Mutt, or Tidy or
anything else is a determination of the Editor, with community input.
For instance, the Subversion package in my opinion was broken by the
developers, in the last release. They claim it to be stable and worthy
of a release. We found out otherwise. So, this make it a BLFS community
and Editor responsibility to find out what is best for *our* book.
Not the developer.
rmlinux: [bogomips 3993.32] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.2]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 188.8.131.52 i686]
09:45:52 up 13 days, 16:20, 5 users, load average: 0.20, 0.08, 0.02
More information about the blfs-dev