Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 08:49:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: on the subject of changes to -RELEASEs... Message-ID: <199704071549.IAA19311@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199704071543.IAA19008@freefall.freebsd.org> from "Darren Reed" at Apr 8, 97 01:37:32 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Darren Reed wrote: > > In some mail from Jonathan M. Bresler, sie said: > > > > a frequently changing "2.2-RELEASE" is not a release > > it would become very difficult to help people with problems. > > (which version you running? 2.2-RELEASE. > > which 2.2-RELEASE?) > > admittedly, we could change the output of uname but trying to > > keep abreast of each version would be supporters nightmare. > > > > "kernel of the week" club? > > aka linux. > > > > no thanks. > > Might I add, that a constantly changing 2.2-STABLE is the equivalent of > the "linux kernel club of the week". At times, FreeBSD-current is a "kernel > of the week" club in many ways too, as is NetBSD-current. absolutely! no doubt about it. that is what the -current label is supposed to imply--currently under developement. wanna run -current on your box? cool, but BE CAREFUL ;) > > What Linux lacks is the distinct "checkpoints" - which in FreeBSD could be > equated to 2.2.0-RELEASE, 2.2.1-RELEASE. Well, from where I sit anyway :) a release is a checkpoint, a freeze on the code base that should never thaw. additional freezes will take place, but once labelled 2.2.0-RELEASE (or whatever) those its never chagen so if harry has a problem with 2.2.0-RELEASE, we can all get the same bits and work on it without being concerned that harry's 2.2.0-RELEASE bits are not the same as ours ;) > > I'm sure I've offended a large number of the FreeBSD team just there :) nahhhhh.....we all got a thicker skin than that. ;> jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704071549.IAA19311>