Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:31:18 +0000 From: Mark Valentine <mark@valentine.me.uk> To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers Message-ID: <200306102031.h5AKVIxF060081@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: <20030610104425.G25465@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> > Date: Tue 10 Jun, 2003 > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Version Release numbers > On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mark Valentine wrote: > > I may just be wierd, but I believe that a 5.0 release should be considered > > "stable" in that there should be no significant issues to be worked out; > > any problems that surface AFTER the release (despite best effort testing) > > should be fixable with a patch release (e.g. 5.0.1). > > You're not only weird, you're seriously out of touch with general > software development models, and FreeBSD history. I'm very sorry to say you couldn't be more wrong on both counts. I only admit to the weird bit; I have this old-fashioned view that released software should work, and a long history of making it so. And as a FreeBSD follower since 386BSD+patchkit, I've adopted many of the good bits of the FreeBSD development model (and others) to help me do it! Later in my message I actually agreed with what the FreeBSD release team has done... I'm a strong proponent of incremental development and evolutionary delivery, and of avoiding extended major release cycles and long-lived development branches where possible, but you have to balance it all with meeting real world needs. Cheers, Mark. -- "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* -- <http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306102031.h5AKVIxF060081>