From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 17 08:55:54 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA08472 for current-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 08:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.barrnet.net (mail.barrnet.net [131.119.246.7]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA08467 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 08:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from freebsd.netcom.com (freebsd.netcom.com [198.211.79.3]) by mail.barrnet.net (8.7.1/MAIL-RELAY-LEN) with SMTP id IAA10418 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 08:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bugs@localhost) by freebsd.netcom.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08740 for current@freebsd.org; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 10:38:28 -0600 From: Mark Hittinger Message-Id: <199512171638.KAA08740@freebsd.netcom.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? (fwd) To: current@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 10:38:28 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > People committing to -current need to get their acts together and stop > destabilising it so much. Prior to 2.1 going gold a free for all in the 2.2 tree was perfectly ok. The strategy of having a stable platform (2.1) has served us very well and a lot of new people are trying it out. Now that 2.1 has gone gold, the time is probably right to start a freeze on the goals for 2.2 functionality and 2.2 performance improvement. ** I didn't say freeze - I said start-to-freeze-the-goals!! ** heh We will have many people who after playing with 2.1 will go ahead and try to bring down 2.2 out of curiosity. This is part of the fun of FreeBSD, that you can get the newest version and play with it. I would actually consider it a sign of (FreeBSD 2.1) success if enough satisfied consumers tried to look at 2.2! The danger is that they might see a lot of problems with it and loose some confidence. I didn't worry about this prior to 2.1's release because 2.1 *was* the next version. Since 2.1 has been released the next version is assumed to be 2.2 by default (I realize we might have a 2.1.5). Perhaps we need a 2.1-stable, 2.2-performance, and a 2.3-boom :-) 2.3-boom could be the new wild west :-) I know there is a disk space issue. Regards, Mark Hittinger Netcom/Dallas bugs@freebsd.netcom.com