From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 27 14:01:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22502 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:01:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from toth.ferginc.com (toth.ferginc.com [205.139.23.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22290 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:00:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from branson@toth.ferginc.com) Received: (from branson@localhost) by toth.ferginc.com (You_Can/Keep_Guessing) id QAA02110; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:24:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19980127162436.56765@toth.FergInc.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:24:36 -0500 From: Branson Matheson To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: [ezk@cs.columbia.edu: Re: amd and release] Reply-To: Branson.Matheson@FergInc.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 Organization: Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 2.2.2-RELEASE Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk FYI.. I have been using this version hapilly in a production environment on my HP's and it is very stable.. I will be taking his suggestion to heart and running it on my fbsd production boxes. They should abuse it quite heavily.. I will be making a port/package when I feel that it is strong enough.. The reason I am chasing this down is that I encountered one of the fixed bugs in our current version today on one of our boxes. Has anyone else been checking into this.. is there any interest? I would like to incorperate it into the source tree at some point.... presumeably when it has been stability checked. -----Forwarded message from Erez Zadok ----- From: Erez Zadok To: Branson.Matheson@FergInc.com Cc: ezk@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: amd and release In message <19980127152703.42074@toth.FergInc.com>, Branson Matheson writes: >> I am a supporter of FreeBSD... and would like to get a "release" >> version of the am-utils in the near future incorperated into our >> tree. Is there any word on when yall will be putting togeher a >> "release" version of the software? >> >> I just built the latest 6.0a15 and it built cleanly and is working >> well. Let me know if I can be of assistance in getting yall tested >> so that we can get a release version. Thanks! > >FreeBSD (the OS) is stable enough that I've had no problems running am-utils >for a long time on both 2.2.1 and 3.0. IMHO you can feel free to >incorporate am-utils as a package/source into freebsd. The Netbsd and >debian linux groups already do. > >I'm a very careful "releaser". What I call alpha-15 most people consider >advanced beta... I've been told this several times on amd-dev and in >private. My suggestion would be for you to run the latest am-utils on your >freebsd machines, and pound on it with everything you've got. If you and >the rest of the freebsd maintainers feel it's stable enough, go for it. If >you find bugs, I'd be happy to look at them (or incorporate bug fixes). > >I was planning to get a beta-1 release this month. Alas, new features were >just ebing discussed in the last few days, that may change exposed >interfaces (like the amd map syntax), so I'd feel more comfortable if it's >still called "alpha"; that way I can still make changes that are necessary. >Once I go to beta, it'd be harder to make user-visible changes. However, >I've tried very very hard not to change amd' map syntax in any significant >way that would break old functionality, only to add to it. > >Erez. - branson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Branson Matheson " If you are falling off of a mountain, Unix System Administrator You may as well try to fly." Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. - Delenn, Minbari Ambassador ( $statements = ) !~ /Corporate Opinion/;