From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 15 20:07:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA01728 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wwwi.com (root@voltimand.csd.wwwi.com [199.1.92.12]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA01721 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cornelius (cornelius.csd.wwwi.com [199.1.92.20]) by wwwi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA23003 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:07:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 20:07:32 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199610160307.UAA23003@wwwi.com> X-Sender: jdw@pop.wwwi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org From: "Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse" Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 09:24 PM 10/15/96 -0500, Joe Greco wrote: >Now my understanding is that -current work split off sometime around >2.0.5R, which means that we have been through three releases of this >same "-stable" branch. There is, in my opinion, some good to that, but >there is also an ever widening divergence of -current and -stable. That divergance is exactly the problem I am trying to point out. Already three "significant contributors" people have said that -stable isn't worth the trouble. However, stable is the only choice for people who want a stable OS who don't have a lot of time to invest in sanitizing their own private -current. >So... I would rather see a 2.2R that was, perhaps, a bit rough at the >edges (like 2.0R) sooner rather than later. I agree. If -stable has abandoned, it's time to look toward something new. Based on the assertions that several people have made that "current is usually fairly stable," it seems like the benefits of this might far outweigh the effort, or at least the possibility is real enough to discuss. Later, Jeff