Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 17:00:48 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: paul@netcraft.co.uk Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD current mailing list) Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? Message-ID: <22179.819302448@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 1995 15:33:19 GMT." <199512181533.PAA18935@server.netcraft.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I also disagree with Poul's suggestion that people go hack user-land > code in 2.1 for 2 reasons. > > 1) You'd have to be pretty selective in what you did for it to > seamlessly drop into -current since all sorts of fundamental things > can change in -current, like header files, mk files, malloc, sysctl > :-) etc. It's not really a good idea to tell people to go and work > in 2.1 and really is just a cop out from addressing the real problem > which is that -current is being hacked without any clear focus as to > where it's headed. >I< don't know of any interface changes yet between 2.1 and 2.2 There is no change in sysctl(3) there is no change to malloc. I would argue that you missed your shot, unless you can show me a piece of code that needs an ifdef for "post-2.1" > 2) It's *IMPORTANT* to have people actually running -current even if they're > not actively developing. If only a tiny number of active developers are > hacking -current then we'll never have enough of an user base for that > branch to find all the bugs that crop up from diverse use. Now this is true, but it doesn't mean that people should hack around in their kernels, does it ? -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22179.819302448>