From owner-freebsd-current Mon Dec 18 00:55:16 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA11729 for current-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA11724 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:55:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.tfs.com (localhost.tfs.com [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21259; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:54:05 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: critter.tfs.com: Host localhost.tfs.com didn't use HELO protocol To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:00:38 PST." <10724.819273638@time.cdrom.com> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: <21257.819276844@critter.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > our wishes are necessarily mutually exclusive, either. I think that > -current can be good enough for *everyone* with just a little more > effort being exerted. Jordan, I think that all the people involved are as cautious as they can be, I don't think you will ever see a more stable -current. If people want to be on a child-proof bleeding edge, they got bigger problems than -current. > I do not speak as one who's hands are free of > blood, either. I've certainly spammed -current few enough times, but > I've also seen -current a lot less scary than it is right now. Jordan, I don't think that -current has been as stable as it is now at any period I can ever remember, unless somebody had swung the titanium release-sword low over the heads of committeres for a long period of time. > Maybe > we could try to stagger these changes in a somewhat more coordinated > fashion? Maybe we could even just go around the table once in -core > and post a "what I'm up to and expect to be committing over the next 3 > months" sort of thing? :-) I think -core isn't enough for that. But anyway, here goes: I intend to continue to isolate the scope of variables as far as I can get it. This may from time to time make a custom kernel uncompilable, as my test-set is GENERIC and LINT. I would also like to point out that we need a lot of user-space hackers too, so if people can't run -current on their box, there is still plenty of challenging tasks to jump on. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.