From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Oct  8 17:29:23 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29265
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA29233
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from benedict@echonyc.com)
Received: from localhost by echonyc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA18642;
	Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com>
Reply-To: ben@rosengart.com
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Is tickadj still required in -CURRENT ? 
In-Reply-To: <3256.907891423@time.cdrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9810082024490.17109-100000@echonyc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> It's been more of a code slush, and the rule still nonetheless in
> effect seems to be "bring it in if it's not too scarey OR if it
> represents something we really need to get out of the way before 3.0,
> or it will be more painful after."  That still leaves a large number
> of things which are being deliberately postponed until after 3.0.
> They'd be nice to have, but we don't have an urgent need to cross the
> bridges they represent at this particular time.

So when is someone going to look at the reproducible, fully documented,
weeks-old filesystem bug I posted to this list two days ago?  Would a
send-pr help?


 Ben

"You have your mind on computers, it seems." 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message