Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 06:22:57 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Studded <Studded@dal.net> Cc: Alex Nash <nash@mcs.net>, Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw.c src/sys/conf files src/sys/i386/isa if_ed.c if_ep.c if_lnc.c src/sys/net if_ethersubr.c srcOR Message-ID: <22400.906384177@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Sep 1998 23:28:14 PDT." <3605F1FE.9590D52E@dal.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I feel strongly that these changes should be backed out of -Stable > immediately. I spent several hours today trying to find why ipfw logging Let's give Luigi a couple of more days to work on this and then we will indeed do exactly that. > This also an EXCELLENT example of why -Current should have been > branched when the beta period for 3.0 started. Yes, this IS an "I told > you so." Nope, it's not an excellent reason at all. Right stimulus, wrong response. :) To branch now would be to create significant merge work during the polishing period for 3.0, work which is almost always extensive if past history is any judge. No way do I want to have lots of people manually merging a whole bunch of work between two branches when what they're doing well and truly reflects what would need to be happening in -current anyway. Ick. We'll branch the tree again when 3.1 is ready to begin its merry journey and 3.0 has entered a truly "-stable" phase as planned. No sooner. - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22400.906384177>