From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Dec  3 09:19:06 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA26079
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:19:06 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA26051;
          Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:18:39 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1])
          by rah.star-gate.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03289;
          Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:18:32 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from hasty@rah.star-gate.com)
Message-Id: <199712031718.JAA03289@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96
To: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org>
cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>,
        FreeBSD current users <FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Dec 1997 12:02:40 GMT."
             <34854A60.829AB149@freebsd.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 09:18:31 -0800
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> I believe that it is *critical* that we don't set up any false
> hopes, and extolling the virtues of half baked code is something
> to avoid.  Some of my code has been in that category, and I hope
> that we have learned from those mistakes.  It is okay, for example,
> given the state of the code, for us to say that SMP works in -current.
> That warns the users of the beta or even incomplete nature of the
> implementation.  More and more, we are in the position of FreeBSD's
> performance and quality being "paraphrased: better than expected",
> but of course not perfect.  I hope that we stay in that position.
> 
> Perhaps we are getting more conservative, but that is probably
> natural given the project's maturing.  One thing for sure, if we
> start becoming overly conservative and stagnent, I will be one to
> try to push things along.
> 
> I tend to agree with the position that we have more time to go before
> 3.0 is ready...  Those users who really really want SMP, kernel
> threads, AIO or whatever fancy new feature that is going into
> -current will have to realize that the code is pre-release and
> immature, and tracking the code will require more effort than code
> that is released and stabilized.

I am not asking to set up any false hopes rather for a target date 
or as some has said a target season to ensure that the project
stays focus and perhaps if someone comes up with a list of 
known problems or goals you *may* actually get help --- that is
if the project needs it.

	Best Regards,
	Amancio