From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Jun 7 02:19:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA02177 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 02:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [206.117.70.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA02171 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 02:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA21218; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 02:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606070919.CAA21218@kachina.jetcafe.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kachina.jetcafe.org: Host [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Nate Williams cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of -stable Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 02:19:05 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nate Williams writes: >[ If you're having *lots* of fun you forget about testing and quickly >commit your changes and then go watch the NBA finals or something like >that, knowing that some geek w/out a life will immediately upgrade his >sources and blow away his system testing out your code. *grin* ] Given all your well worded statements of understanding about people who need stable systems (different than the -stable release), THIS is why I don't use -current. ;-) I'd really love to have fun with you guys. Really. Hell if I had my way, I'd be digging deep into the code. My clients, however, don't like to have fun in the same way. And while I am not an advocate of any sort of subscription to the notions of credibility, the fledgling commercial internet businesses don't have any other way to separate hype from competance. >Basically, if I bring in a fix to a user-land utility/library, it should >go into -current to be beat on for 'a while to make sure the fix is >valid unless it's really an obvious fix. Then, I should bring the fix >into -stable once 'a while' has passed and the fix has been properly >tested. The rub is that 'a while' is variable, and that once the fix is >in the developer moves onto bigger/better things and forgets completely >about the fix using the now-famous quote "It's been fixed in >-current". Isn't that what the SNAPs are really for? Correct me if I'm wrong (and who out there won't?) but aren't these supposed to be "more stable snapshots" of -current? On a related note, software I deliver to customers is (usually) accompanied by Q&A procedures. Is there *any* way to Q&A an entire UNIX system in an automated fashion? One solution to the "-stable" thing is to have a "test script" (oh right, one script?) that exercises all known bugs... ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet In a meadow, the King shot an arrow at a deer but missed. "Bravo!" a Fool shouted. The King became angry and snapped "So! You're making fun of me, eh? I am going to punish the life out of you!" "My word of praise was not for His Excellency, but for the deer."