Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 10:01:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> To: phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: FreeBSD-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? Message-ID: <199512191001.KAA01747@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <22409.819304476@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Dec 18, 95 05:34:36 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Poul-Henning Kamp who said > > > That's really not the issue. I'm not expecting such clear incompatibilties > > that an #ifdef 2.1 would be required (although the vm header changes would > > in fact require that so there you are, I have an example). > You can apply the same fix in 2.1, it's the 2.1 src that is bogus. How are you going to even find out the bug exists if you're not running -current? If you're seriously suggesting that people should consider doing development work on user land code in 2.1 if they're having problems with -current's stability then things really have got out of control. This has never been a problem before and it shouldn't be now, we want to get more people back to using -current not "recommend" that they use 2.1 instead. We're talking about potential developers here, who are wiling to put up with the odd problem, not end users who need stability. -- Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512191001.KAA01747>