From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 15 13:12: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mailbox1.ucsd.edu (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A328D150A4 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:11:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rjdawes@physics.ucsd.edu) Received: from physics.ucsd.edu (huntington.ucsd.edu [132.239.73.96]) by mailbox1.ucsd.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA29927 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost by physics.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA18154; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:09:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:09:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard J. Dawes" X-Sender: rjdawes@huntington Reply-To: Richard Dawes To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: An Idea [was "What do people think of May 1st for a 3.2 release date?"] In-Reply-To: <199903151103.AA17270@waltz.rahul.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi, all! I'm pretty new to this list and keep mostly quiet, especially since I'm still a student and most issues go over my head. But, I have an idea regarding the timing of releases and the work being done on freebsd-stable. [No groans, yet, please! ;-) ] I've amended the subject of this so that the original 'thread' isn't muddled. First, keep the longer release interval in place, whatever you all think that should be (6 mos., a year, whatever). Then, simply designate on a regular basis (monthly, bimonthly, whatever) some source- snap to be an entirely unofficial subrelease (is "point-release" the lingo?). It should probably be a couple weeks old at least, one that seems to have the best combo. of bug fixes vs. new bugs caused by them. This could be decided by Jordan, consensus on this list, whatever. Since it is not an official release such a decision can be made entirely unscientifically; gut feeling is entirely reasonable in this scheme. If in some month things are just so weird that this is just impractical, then this can be noted in a short README next to the snap directories (which in any case could be a clearinghouse for suggestions to handle as-yet unresolved problems). This way, the regular development cycle can be preserved. Dummies (like me ;-), though, would have a means for being quite reason- ably sure that such "stable-snap" source would build into a more stable system then what the last CD provides, and yet not have to follow the day-to-day developments with freebsd-stable. Sysadmins, who should of course still follow the regular track, could with minimal effort keep their systems more up-to-date without testing things out on a standalone system first. Well, what do you all think? [OK, you can groan now ;-) ] Please be gentle, though, since I'm still a green newbie here. Oh, and yes, Mike, I'll help out in whatever feeble way I can! ;-) --Rich ======================================== Richard J. Dawes rdawes@ucsd.edu ======================================== To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message