From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 15 19:05:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA26159 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA26150 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 19:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08280; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:04:35 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:04:35 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199610160204.UAA08280@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Michael Smith Cc: jdw@wwwi.com (Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse), freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 In-Reply-To: <199610160117.KAA27501@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199610152100.OAA03005@wwwi.com> <199610160117.KAA27501@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Michael Smith writes: > Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse stands accused of saying: > > > > I guess -current is getting awfully far ahead of -stable. Which is > > natural, since it's moving and -stable isn't. Maybe I'm the only one > > that's starting to feel left behind, like -stable's been unhooked > > from the FreeBSD train (partially because it was slowing the train down). > > The -stable banner was _very_ prominently offered to any one or group who > wanted to carry it forward, and there were lots of "we would love you if > you did" noises from people at the thought. > > But nobody has taken it up. Does -stable matter to you? Do you or your > business want to see -stable move forwards? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. To followup on it. I gave up doing work on -stable b/c I felt like one lone voice in the wilderness, and given my lack of involvement in projects I *should* be doing (mobile/laptop stuff) I decided it wasn't worth my time to try and back-port stuff to -stable. That being said, I will do my best to integrate patches into -stable that folks submit to me IFF they have been fully tested. I have a laptop which has 2 disks which runs -stable on one and -current on the other, so I can at least give it a quick test on my box before integrating it into the system. Also, I'm not going to integrate anything 'huge' and or significantly because of the -stable charter. So, if you want to provide me some patches, I'll get them into stable. But, folks need to make it *really* easy for me to do by making them apply against -stable w/out problems (no funky diffs with extraneous changes) and that will work (ie; no crashes), that provide obvious *needed* functionality (ex; SYN flooding patches would be OK, changing permissions on init would be rejected). Nate