Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:23:43 -0700
From:      "Jason Watkins" <jwatkins@firstplan.com>
To:        "Jordan Hubbard" <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
Cc:        "Stable" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <JBEOKPCEMKJLMJAKBECCIEPNDBAA.jwatkins@firstplan.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010624023403R.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think it's become clear in this discussion that some people
reguard -stable as the secure, regularly updated moving release canidate.
Other people view -stable as a just stable enough branch for developers to
coordinate building new functionality.

If the 2nd view is the official one, then a new branch should be started
that has the first purpose in mind. Weither you like it or not, a great many
users are simply going to insist that they have some way of updating the
system at a days notice of security or stability issues imbetween releases.

In my own expierences working in the software world (CRM, not anything
systems related) releasing new functionality often in small doses, basicly
as often as your clients IT staff can stomach dealing with, absolutely
obliterates any other approach. Changes in idiology, functionality or
configuration are small, delt with quickly, and the feedback loop between
request/response and actual implimentation shorts to mere weeks. Everyone
ends up much happyer. I was under the understanding, gleaned from the
handbook and from some people here, that -stable was the place for this sort
of mentality. If it's not, then IMHO, we need a place for it.

As anicdotal evidence, I used debian quite a bit a few years back. There
certainly was no problem staying with the stable branch there. The OpenBSD
team also seems to show it's possible to maintain a stable moving codebase
as well.

Is it actually any individuals role to oversee the stability of stable? Or
is it left to each individual committer who's checked out certain tasks to
judge if his code is safe enough to move from -current to -stable? Whole
holds the vision of common practices and evangalises them to the rest of the
developers? Who ensures (by review) that a mistake of practice only happens
once?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?JBEOKPCEMKJLMJAKBECCIEPNDBAA.jwatkins>