From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 16 10:51:23 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA20239 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 10:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.skipstone.com (root@GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA20233 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 10:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bugs.skipstone.com (bugs.skipstone.com [204.69.236.2]) by gateway.skipstone.com (8.7.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA16678; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:51:13 -0500 Received: from [204.69.236.50] (hotapplepie.skipstone.com [204.69.236.50]) by bugs.skipstone.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA16741; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:51:12 -0500 X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:51:11 -0600 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> >What is wrong with the ALPHA/BETA/RELEASE cycle (aside from the fact that >> >it has been pretty much abused/ignored for the last few releases)? >> >> "Pretty much"? I feel that it has been totally abused. > >That's simply because you haven't kept up to date with events. The >whole ALPHA/BETA naming cycle was *discontinued* just as soon as I >started making 2.2-current (and even one or two 2.1-stable) snapshots >regularly. They filled the same niche, and the whole ALPHA/BETA >system was falling apart anyway due to a lack of concerted testing. >I will not be bringing back the ALPHA/BETA/RELEASE cycle. It simply >stopped working for me, and an non-working mechanism helps me not at >all when the crunch is on. I previously noted that the SNAPs do serve the "alpha" function. However what I feel to have been missing was that final freeze and test before releasing cycle. It seems to me that there was too much added at the last minute. Personally, I would rather see the releases spun off more frequently and a "Sorry, you missed the train. There will be another one in just a few minutes(months)" attitude. I get the feeling that I should treat the x.x.0 release as the "beta" and the x.x.5 that follows as the "release". You will recall that I was advocating the spinoff of 2.2 from -current some time ago.