Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:32:04 -0500 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cc can't build 32-bit executables on amd64 Message-ID: <20060502163204.GB31236@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <4456E860.8090308@samsco.org> References: <200605011604.26507.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <20060501212539.GA24193@regurgitate.ugcs.caltech.edu> <4456C439.1070500@samsco.org> <4456E860.8090308@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 11:04:32PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > While it's always unfortunate and undesirable to have bugs in releases > or have missing features, it's even more undesirable to hold releases > indefinitely until "all the problems are solved". Even the most cursory review of GNATS will reveal that there are bugs in every release. Even if we were a professional, rather than almost-all- volunteer, organization, this would _still_ be true. This is true of all software, not just FreeBSD. (I will not mention the name of any Major Operating System/Applications Vendors here). The tradeoff is _always_ "which bugs affect the most people". If we waited for all the problems to be solved, we would have releases very rarely. This was tried in the 5.X cycle and really didn't work very well :-) So it's a question of where you make the tradeoffs. From at least one perspective (ports, could you have guessed? :-) ), the release has already been fairly drawn-out as it is. I'll echo what Scott said about preparing for these things early, so that everyone can try to prioritize which bugs most need to be addressed. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060502163204.GB31236>