From owner-freebsd-current Wed Apr 21 19:20: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2072D153FF for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:19:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA46267; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:16:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Doug Rabson Cc: Matthew Dillon , Peter Wemm , Matthew Reimer , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:14:18 BST." Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:16:08 -0700 Message-ID: <46265.924747368@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I wonder if it would be too radical to suggest that the release cycle for > 4.0 be *much* shorter than the 3.0 cycle. Maintaining two branches gets > worse and worse as time goes on and it just becomes a waste of programmer > time. If we are reasonably careful with the 4.0 tree, I think a 4.0 What's your definition of "much" in this case? I also disagree that the multi-branch model is a "waste" of programmer time since it's what keeps us able to have an experimental line of development at all. To programmers, that's pretty important. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message