Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:21:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley. Message-ID: <199504210021.TAA03656@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <7175.798406484@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Apr 20, 95 12:34:44 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I was involved peripherally in the 4.1x BSD releases, mainly because they
had all these silly little scripts they needed written and us undergrads were
easy prey.
> We are on the hook to make 2.1 everything 1.1.5.1 is and now it looks
> like we'll be doing that all the way up through June. This is only
> right and proper since that's genuinely how long it's going to take to
> do a 1.1.5.1 equivalent,
Bravo! I salute you!
> but this still leaves things like the
> upcoming 2.0.6 unaccounted for. How do we deal with this in the
> future so that it's not such a mess?
(1) 2.0 was released too early. A lot of the changes subsequent to 2.0 should
have been in 2.0. We know why 2.0 was released when it was. That's not
a problem.
(2) There should have been a 2.0.1 release prior to the inclusion of the slice
code.
(3) There should be interim releases prior to the addition of *any* major
functionality. That includes devfs.
(4) The snaps should be kept up, to keep interest up.
FreeBSD looks to me very much like 4BSD was between 4.1 and 4.2. A lot of *new*
stuff is going in, and it's hurting stability. A series of interim releases
when new stuff begins to gel are needed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504210021.TAA03656>