Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:09:00 +0100
From:      Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk>
To:        "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc:        Johan Granlund <johang@algonet.se>, stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: The demise of -stable
Message-ID:  <199606071009.LAA25144@tees>
In-Reply-To: <18208.834096340@time.cdrom.com>
References:  <199606061914.VAA07596@hermes.algonet.se>	<18208.834096340@time.cdrom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> ""Jordan" == "Jordan K Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> writes:

>> How about a stable branch as now. With bugfixes and choice bits
>> from the -current tree.

"Jordan> As long as none of us have to do the work, I guess I have no
"Jordan> problem with -stable continuing to evolve by whichever group
"Jordan> of -committers wishes to evolve it.  My only worry would be
"Jordan> about quality control and "rogue" releases making the rounds.
"Jordan> There would have to be some sort of core team stamp of
"Jordan> approval, I think, for everyone to be comfortable with the
"Jordan> idea of additional releases being made along the -stable
"Jordan> branch (unless the idea is that this is never made into
"Jordan> another release but merely kept around as a shared source
"Jordan> resource?).

Well, I've already said to Jordan that I'd be willing to look after a -stable
branch but *only* for bug fixes and only for bug fixes that can be
done without a lot of re-architecting, those more complex bug fixes should
be done in -current. There are companies I've sold FreeBSD systems to that
actually use -stable as a bug fix tracking system, it's a hell of a lot
nicer to sup or ctm -stable than it is to deal with Sun's bug fix system
and we could make -stable a valuable resource along these lines.

I think a bug-fix cdrom would be nice but that can be dicussed later, the
idea of a bug fix mechanism is more important to me.

The sort of bug fixes that would be OK would be the fixes Justin has made to
the adaptec driver, the sort of thing I wouldn't like to allow would be
"choice bits" since that's not what people tracking -stable are really
looking for, they want the bugs in the functionality they have fixed not
new stuff, they'll wait until the next full release for that, their main
concern is *stability*.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606071009.LAA25144>