Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:55:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris BeHanna <behanna@zbzoom.net> To: FreeBSD-Stable <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why is the STABLE branch not so stable anymore? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0106112253350.32911-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20010611161820O.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > I'm confused about this. The Handbook says to track -STABLE, if errr...
> > you want stability. Are you saying that in order to have a stable system,
> > we should stick with -RELEASE?
>
> The handbook also says:
>
> Warning: The FreeBSD-STABLE tree endeavors, above all, to be fully
> compilable and stable at all times, but we do occasionally make
> mistakes (these are still active sources with quickly-transmitted
> updates, after all). We also do our best to thoroughly test fixes in
> FreeBSD-CURRENT before bringing them into FreeBSD-STABLE, but
> sometimes our tests fail to catch every case.
>
> Which means that you shouldn't track it if you have no tolerance for
> such things. That's what -releases are for.
Yep.
Suggestion: committers hold off on commits for 30 minutes before
and after midnight UTC, so that those who track stable can grab the
tree as of midnight each night knowing that they didn't do so in the
middle of a large commit.
--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "bogus" before responding.)
behanna@bogus.zbzoom.net
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.32.0106112253350.32911-100000>