rhabarba@feddit.org to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 个月前OpenBSD has reached OpenBSD of Theseusmarc.infoexternal-linkmessage-square10fedilinkarrow-up1124arrow-down14cross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fansopenbsd@lemmy.sdf.org
arrow-up1120arrow-down1external-linkOpenBSD has reached OpenBSD of Theseusmarc.inforhabarba@feddit.org to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 个月前message-square10fedilinkcross-posted to: hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fansopenbsd@lemmy.sdf.org
minus-squarerhabarba@feddit.orgOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down3·3 个月前Yes, it is, because it does the job. Why exactly shouldn’t they?
minus-squarechellomere@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·3 个月前For example, maybe branching is something you’d like to be able to do without it being a nightmare?
minus-squarerhabarba@feddit.orgOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·3 个月前OpenBSD seems to be able to have branches (CURRENT and STABLE), and they seem to be able to manage them just fine.
Yes, it is, because it does the job. Why exactly shouldn’t they?
For example, maybe branching is something you’d like to be able to do without it being a nightmare?
OpenBSD seems to be able to have branches (CURRENT and STABLE), and they seem to be able to manage them just fine.