From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 16 09:47:59 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA14280 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA14272 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 09:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id LAA27921; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:46:21 -0500 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199610161646.LAA27921@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:46:20 -0500 (CDT) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199610161550.JAA11320@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Oct 16, 96 09:50:22 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > >I would prefer to have a 2.2ALPHA in my hands TODAY, a 2.2BETA a month > > >from now, followed by a 2.2R in December. This would shake out obvious > > >bugs in 2.2R, but would not be a sufficient period of time for robustness > > >testing and bug elimination. > > > > I concur. I also feel that we should continue to "support" (as in "have > > readily available") a production grade version that has been shaken pretty > > well. > > I haven't seen any support from you for 2.1.5? Where are the PR's? > Where are the emails with fixes? Are you volunteering me to do the > support? It's mighty fine of you to tell me what I should/shouldn't do > with my time, but methinks you're wasting both my time and yours with > statements like the above. > > 'Find solutions not problems. We've got plenty of the latter to go > around, thank you very much!' Well, I have not noticed any problems with 2.1.5R! The only "valuable" addition that I can think of would be a TCP SYN attack guard... other than that I can think of no outstanding complaints I have against it! I do suggest that 2.1.5R should continue as the "reliability" branch for the time being, for people who need rock solid systems, but I am not telling you what you must do, or even that you must support it if you do do it. I would rather see 2.2R get pushed out the door so that there can be a less-divergent-from-current stable tree under development. I really think that that is fairly important. (Please note: all of this has been expressed as opinion. That _should_ be immediately obvious.) ... JG