Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 05:40:35 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: When is 2.2 Estimated to be released? Message-ID: <199603092140.FAA03040@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 09 Mar 1996 13:53:57 MST." <199603092053.NAA21373@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[...] >> An interesting point: If the -stable branch was not consuming the amount >> of maintainence time that it has been, we'd most likely _have_ 4.4Lite-2 >> and PCMCIA integration, as well as a greatly debugged vm, vfs and kernel. > >Yes; I agree that splitting the maintenance from the developement is >needed. Having people like John, and David, et al spending time >back-porting is a waste of their talents. Just out of interest, a diff -c between the most recent releases and branches (after stripping $Id$ changes etc) is about this: 2.0.5R -> 2.1.0R = about 10MB 2.1.0R -> 2.1-stable = about 6MB 2.1-stable -> 2.2-current = about 17MB. The difference from -stable to -current is heading towards being twice the size of the 2.0.5R -> 2.1.0R changes. It should comfortably hit 20MB once good chunks of 4.4Lite2 goes in.. (in case anybody is wondering how to strip $Id$ changes with CVS, use the -kk flag, eg: "cvs -q diff -kk -rRELENG_2_1_0") > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org Cheers, -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603092140.FAA03040>