Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:51:11 -0600 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <v01540b03ae8adc54b1f8@[204.69.236.50]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v01540b03ae8adc54b1f8>