Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:22:15 +0100 (MET) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> To: current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Cc: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, jkh@FreeBSD.org Subject: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951217083228.405C-100000@knobel.gun.de>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi FreeBSD core team !
[ Possibly I'm speaking for many other people here ]
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 read in -current very often messages like, can't boot, can't compile,
unreferenced symbols, ... and so on ...
Nothing on which you would want to run your home system
(news, mail, www).
Since I only have one PC and one harddisk, as many other people,
it's not possible for me to switch to -current, because I need
a certain level of stability.
When speaking with people like Martin Cracauer, then I get
the impression, that possibly more people would be interested
to help in FreeBSD developement. Perhaps developing additional
features, too. But they only have one machine, which shouldn't
get into a very unstable state.
So how could one attract more people, to work on the bleeding
edge, without loosing stability too much ??!!
Could FreeBSD-current developement be made more attractive
to more people by splitting -current into 2 branches ?
FreeBSD-current
FreeBSD-experimental
The FreeBSD-experimental tree should be for typical alpha software
for equipped hackers with two systems or two harddisks ...
If there is a brand new driver with a risk of crashing the systemm
it should be added and tested there.
If the new driver doesn't cause crashes or such it shoud move to
FreeBSD-current, to introduce it to a larger audience that is
willed to test the bleeding edge.
Such newly introduced feature should be tested well in -current
and should get to a stable state in -current. If it is stable, then
a) it can be added to the -stable branch.
b) you have a stable -current with the newest "tested" features
This would have the advantage, that more people could work on -current,
since it could be more stable then now. And ... the developers would
work on a developement platform, that has incorporated the newest
features.
What about that ? Too much admin overhaead ?
Perhaps that bit more on administration overhead regarding the
newly introduced source branch can be justified with a certain
increase of FreeBSD-current developers ?!
Would it be possible to start with such a "beast" by simply
leaving current as it ->> "experimental branch" and by introducing
something like a FreeBSD-beta branch and adding current-changes to
it, that are known to be stable ?
So you'd have a
release branch - the last good one
stable branch - fixes for last -release and stable new features
from beta branch
beta branch - new features, something like SNAPSHOT in
it's early hours ;-)
alpha (current)
branch - current for hackers as it is
Would/could you agree with such a change ? If you would offer a
more stable -current as described, I'd immediately switch to
sup the new beta-branch to see what's new and to give feedbacks...
So I can't :(
Andreas ///
--
andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH
Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ - Support Unix - aklemm@wup.de -
\/
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz
apsfilter - magic print filter 4lpd >>> knobel is powered by FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.951217083228.405C-100000>