From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 9 05:37:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A3D16A4BF; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 05:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from moo.sysabend.org (moo.sysabend.org [66.111.41.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5490E43FE5; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 05:37:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ragnar@sysabend.org) Received: by moo.sysabend.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id D66C51316; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 05:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moo.sysabend.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33681315; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 05:37:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 05:37:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jamie Bowden To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <20030908161846.T32034@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> Message-ID: <20030909053039.F80387-100000@moo.sysabend.org> X-representing: Only myself. X-badge: We don't need no stinking badges. X-obligatory-profanity: Fuck X-moo: Moo. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Michel Talon cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Old Way Was Better X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:37:56 -0000 On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Jamie Bowden wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > > > > > As for the rest of your post, it's all very interesting, but incredibly > > > unlikely to happen. The creation of the RELENG_4_X branches solved the > > > immediate need for a "stable branch plus security fixes." 5.x is still > > > -current, and while we do need to be more careful with our marketing > > > (and more careful with what goes into a 5.x release), massive branch > > > renaming just isn't going to happen, nor is expanding the number of > > > branches going to help. > > > > Once -STABLE moves from 4.x to 5.x (so that the project is back on 5.x-R, > > 5-S, and 5-C), is STABLE once again going to BE stable? > > We are delaying the branch in -current until we're reasonably confident > that the thing is stable enough to use in a production system. Of > course, as soon as we declare it "stable" then the number of users will > go up dramatically, and more bugs will be found. This is inevitable. Which is fine, but the gist of my question is whether or not we can expect to see the sort of stringent -CURRENT testing of code prior to MFC to -STABLE once the merge takes place and FBSD is no longer tracking two concurrent releases? The PAO issues would never have been allowed in the past, it would have immediately been backed out as soon as it became apparent that it was a show stopper of a bug. Bugs made it into -S in the past; -C users are a limited subset, but if something made it into -S that wasn't ready, it was immediately pulled back out of the public CVS repo until it was tracked and squished. As I said in my original entry point to this thread, I know the project is tracking two concurrent releases right now, so there are some accomodations being made, resources are scarce, this is a free project built by volunters, etc. Those resources hopefully won't be so stretched come the 5-STABLE branch later this month. Jamie Bowden -- "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold" Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" Iain Bowen