From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec 13 23:44:10 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA18053
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 23:44:10 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp3.portal.net.au [202.12.71.103])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA18048
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 23:44:03 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au)
Received: from word (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA05671;
	Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:06:45 +1030 (CST)
Message-Id: <199712140736.SAA05671@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Proposed code merge, objections? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 14 Dec 1997 06:53:01 BST."
             <199712140553.GAA01161@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 18:06:45 +1030
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > I've been told there is no official policy on this, so I want some
> > > feedback.  I am considering currently a merge of the alog driver
> > > (Industrial Computer Source AIO8-P) into -stable.
> > 
> > -stable is not meant to accumulate new features from -current.  Unless
> > there are strong reasons, new drivers should not migrate there.  This
> > _is_ official policy.

Particularly in the case of Jamil's driver, which is unlikely to be 
particularly useful to anyone other than Jamil as anything other than a 
sample.

> So to put things differently, what is the policy to move features
> from -current to -stable ? Unfortunately we don't have a port
> category for kernel enhancements, maybe we should add one.

If a feature is nonintrusive and subject to popular demand, migration 
after a vetting period in -current is worth considering.  Also bear in 
mind that often things would make it back to -stable if there was 
someone that was a) using the feature and b) had the time and resources 
(eg. a -stable system) to do the backport with.

mike