Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:56:38 -0700 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@hub.freebsd.org> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, Joseph Scott <joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu>, Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/finger finger.c Message-ID: <20001003155638.B73409@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <39DA6055.594B13E4@originative.co.uk>; from Paul Richards on Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:40:21PM %2B0100 References: <83262.970607906@winston.osd.bsdi.com> <39DA6055.594B13E4@originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:40:21PM +0100, Paul Richards wrote: > > > > If it's now part of your full-time hattism to worry about this then I > > hope you'll start spending some number of hours each day in reviewing > > each and every change which goes into -stable. However many other > > I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. The stable team > wouldn't be putting in a lot of hours reviewing stable commits. Stable > commits would only occur if the stable team did them i.e. no-one else > would be allowed to commit to stable. The stable team would then monitor > -current, noting commits that are bug fixes, and slating them for a MFC > at a later date when it's felt they've had enough of a shakeout. > > Stable would stagnate to some extent, certainly more so than it > presently does, but I think that's exactly what should happen to a > stable branch. That's not to say that new features would never make it > back to the stable branch but they would certainly do so a lot more > slowly and only if there was real value to them and not just because > they exist. Uh. If only the "-stable" team were allowed to commit to -stable, then it would quickly become the -stale branch. I think that we had this at one point with 3.X, and there were lots of complaints. -stable is not (IMHO) supposed to be just bugfixes. Doing it that way would just put more pressure on the developers to shove the next release line out the door because they want new features. If you just want "bugfixes" and no new features, then may I suggest that you stick with the 3.X branch? No new development or changes go in there, but you can still pull in critical bug fixes as needed. Then when 5.0 becomes the -stable branch, you can move on to 4.x. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001003155638.B73409>