From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Dec 17 11:56:23 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA14828
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 11:56:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ra.dkuug.dk (ra.dkuug.dk [193.88.44.193])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA14809
          Sun, 17 Dec 1995 11:56:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from sos@localhost) by ra.dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14386; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 20:46:43 +0100
Message-Id: <199512171946.UAA14386@ra.dkuug.dk>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ???
To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans)
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 20:46:42 +0100 (MET)
Cc: andreas@knobel.gun.de, julian@jhome.dialix.com, cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de,
        current@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jkh@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199512171911.GAA17231@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Dec 18, 95 06:11:27 am
From: sos@FreeBSD.ORG
Reply-to: sos@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

In reply to Bruce Evans who wrote:
> 
> >> Hi FreeBSD core team !
> >> 
> >> [ Possibly I'm speaking for many other people here ]
> >It's possible.
> 
> Possibly for non-developers :-).
> 
> >> 
> >> Generally I would be interested to help testing and debugging new
> >> FreeBSD-current features. But when reading the -current mailing list, 
> >> FreeBSD-current, so to say FreeBSD-2.2 in it's early days, seems to be
> >> an instability nightmare. Perhaps this expression is a bit oversized,
> >> but please understand my point of view.
> >I do dissagree. -current is exceptionally stable for what it is...
> 
> I agree with Julian.

Ahem, I'm not sure I do, I think we should take this critique VERY
serious guys.
I have been trying to get a -current system up and running for the 
last week, and its just been possible shortly to even compile
a system without tweeking files here and there...
(and I'm seeing runtime problems here and there still)
I think its is CRUCIAL that -current can be compile & is
resonably stable at any given time.
I agree that this puts more stress on the people doing "high tech"
development for the next release, but they should test their code
so that it at least compiles. When it is kernel level stuff it
should at least work too. I've been burnt more than once by a kernel
that blew up into my face destroing hours of work (I know, I asked
for it running current :)
Also getting a current up and running this time (for doing dev
work) has costed me ~ a week where I could have done some
real work on the system....

> >I run -currrent (up until last week) on my machine at TFS.com
> >and I have had NO troubles with it...
> 
> I have had only one serious problem (2 core dumps apparently caused by
> some vm change in the last month).

You must have another current than most of us :) :)


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt             (sos@FreeBSD.org)             FreeBSD Core Team
               So much code to hack -- so little time.