Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:27:23 +0200 From: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> To: Richard Caley <richard@caley.org.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) Message-ID: <3DD906DB.5591BF01@ene.asda.gr> References: <3DD8FD2B.8A95364E@ene.asda.gr> <200211181458.gAIEwlJP027099@pele.r.caley.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Caley wrote: > > > I think the best thing is to keep things as simple as possible. > > But no simpler. > > > I personally think that a fix should always be a fix > > that is like saying a cure for cancer should be a cure for > cancer. Fine. It wouldn't be called a cure for a cancer otherwise). > How do you know it is a cure and how do you know what > the side effects will be. I think the answer is obviously, long time testing and monitoring. > If life could ever be that simple we wouldn't need _any_ branches. So lets not make any other sub-branches of branches and patches to comlicate things even further. > A lot of testing goes into what becomes a release. People using the > RELEASE branch have a reasonable expectation that it will have been > tested to that standard. That amount of testing can't be done for > every fix applied to the STABLE branch. Occasionally there will be a > fix which will break something else that no one thought to > test. > > Basicly, you can't have somethign which is stable and which gets fixed > quickly, the two aims are in opposition. But you can have a -STABLE that is reliable and *critical* patches are applied quickly. I believe that this is what mostly this thread is about. 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?3DD906DB.5591BF01>