What if the disaster involves changes in the ZFS kernel code? Or do you think there are never bugs in that code?
I noticed this earlier, and I didn't feel like commenting then. It doesn't look hostile though, but I can see how it can be seen as something like that.
That's interesting.
There is eventually something to fix in CURRENT. Whether it involves removing that piece entirely.
You are right, I described the world as black and white.
Not on here, but when there are rare exceptions to something that belongs, it keeps getting continuously challenged, and eventually pushed to get removed at a future time on venues where it can be, after its case was made for why it belongs. Comments in a forum relevant to topic which often can be opinion are treated differently than another cooperative venue which has 1 version of a text. On here, someone may explain why they posted it (sometimes that they're aware or have become aware of the rule), and others continue to repeat mentioning the guideline. This shows that usually, a more clear guideline is needed, one that takes into account those exceptions. For instance, what exceptions can CURRENT be discussed, to what extent, and (which is already often done) when it can be discussed without expecting much from here, obviously not for asking for troubleshooting for those who don't have enough experience to do a bulk of it on their own. It's true though, that usually there's not a lot of value for posting CURRENT in here, except for select circumstances.
Just to make it clear: If you're serious about maintaining and testing a port, you need -CURRENT. I disable all the debugging stuff that's enabled on -CURRENT by default for that purpose because I don't want to slow down the test builds...
That's what the
-current tag is for. 
THIS is exactly why devs tell everyone to stay away from it, and not use it unless you really know what you're getting into.Just to reiterate, I am observing a difference between (understanding intents and expectations in the conversation) and (getting frustrated that the conversation is not going your way). I think the latter is a result of either:
I think I wasn't clear. The individual problems that arise in current do have to be fixed. Sometimes this involves removing a feature entirely, as you point out. You can imagine that approach would not go over well if there were a bunch of people already using that feature. That's another reason why current is not for general use.
That must be due to a lack of experience and training. It's Friday in most parts of the world, and often going to drink on Friday night is customary. Tonight, after work go to a bar (in your timezone, that might be in about an hour). It is considered polite to tell one's better half ahead of time. Once in the bar, order a slightly unusual drink. Chat with people, about life, weather, perhaps politics (dangerous topic!), and definitely about what to drink. If you are in a steady relationship, better not chat too much with people of the desirable gender (which can be different for everyone). Have another drink. Ask your new best friend what is good to drink, and try that. Then try something different. And yet another. Go to the bathroom and throw up, because you had one too many. Have a basket of garlic fries. Kiss someone random. Dance a little bit, fall on the floor, and let your new friends carry you back to a chair. Call a taxi and get home in some fashion. Drink several glasses of water. Sleep for a long time, then get up and take a shower. Your Saturday might be a little bit ruined, but that's a worthwhile investment.astyle I'm not sure I really understand your analogy
Actually, I just thought of another sensible use for writing here about current: as a warning to others. For example, you could post in some section of the forum: "Dear users, I'm running current, and when I do ls is the root directory, a purple elephant goes flying across the screen. I've sent e-mail to the developer mailing list, and they confirmed that this is a known bug which will be fixed at some point in the future. I'm just writing this here so that if another user sees a purple flying elephant, they are not alarmed. Please all go on drinking more now."
The people running this place don't want that traffic. That is really all there is to it.
I wouldn't do either, this was just a reference to @astyles post.
freebsd-update in the production releases. When I built the world then, it took so long to do, I didn't realize, that while the world was built and installed, I lacked building the kernel, in retrospect. Long after, I stopped having interest with building the world, as I was fascinated with making tweaks to src.conf. freebsd-update, and not for other reasons. If a user wants to play with CURRENT or STABLE, go ahead. STABLE is good, but it requires to build the whole base for updates. If you're for that, then do it. If someone wants to play with a specific feature in CURRENT or STABLE, then do that. When it comes to hardware, especially previously with graphics cards, that was a good reason to try CURRENT or STABLE. Features not related to hardware can likely be installed manually or through ports. Then, I used those versions to try them out, even though I didn't know how to try their capabilities that weren't available in production versions./me hears a sharp intake of breath, disgust at the mere suggestion, from at least one person in the audience and i am the CEO of noobs.