Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:59:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Lamont Granquist <lamont@scriptkiddie.org> To: "A. L. Meyers" <a.l.meyers@consult-meyers.com> Cc: Steve Lumos <slumos@nevada.edu>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <20010723095250.B66779-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> In-Reply-To: <20010723093818.C434-100000@nomad.consult-meyers.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, A. L. Meyers wrote: > It seems to me that it would be in the very best interest of > FreeBSD to apply whatever quality controls are appropriate to > ensure that "stable" means what it says. You're checking out the head of a development tree. It will never be stable in your sense. As mentioned before it might theoretically be best to rename "stable" but it needs a volunteer (you?) to do the work to fix all the breakage which will result. > Do you seriously expect > all users to go thru the testing procedures enumerated below? Then use a point release with the security patches applied. > Most probably expect such things to be done by developers before > new and/or improved code is incorporated into "stable". Like I said, the testing matrix of the x86 platforms are way too damn fucking big. Do you know how many different flavors of intel eepro100 chips alone are out there? Do you think that any of the fxp developers have a full matrix of all of them? Do you even think that the people who are -current have all of them? Multiply that just by the number of x86 motherboards out there and you will get some idea of what kind of testing matrix we're talking about. Of course, are you volunteering to do QA on code before it goes into stable? If you've got the hardware and the manpower then maybe we can do something about it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010723095250.B66779-100000>