Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:27:43 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: STABLE support team [Was: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/finger finger.c] Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003161654.00de6b60@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20001003163020.B38472@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20001003125150.04c7f3f0@localhost> <39DA182C.C70ED553@originative.co.uk> <39D98B55.126DAFC4@originative.co.uk> <200010022227.PAA62603@freefall.freebsd.org> <39D92E08.E00CF2E4@owp.csus.edu> <20001002180303.A40584@freefall.freebsd.org> <39D98B55.126DAFC4@originative.co.uk> <200010031530.JAA26493@harmony.village.org> <20001003124008.A4892@netmonger.net> <200010031800.MAA27859@harmony.village.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20001003125150.04c7f3f0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:30 PM 10/3/2000, Bill Fumerola wrote: >Why does the version number matter? If we released a new version every two weeks, >would 4.2 still be production ready for you? What if 4.1.1 was called 4.2? Would you >run it? Well, Bill, 4.1.1 was not a full release, and all of the same activities that go into a full point release were not carried on for it. There's something about a full point release that gets folks off of their, er, derrieres and gets them to finish and commit changes that they had not yet completed. As you know, the purpose of 4.1.1 was to roll cryptography into -STABLE in the wake of the expiration of the RSA patent. A good thing, of course, but there are still some glitches in 4.1.1 that I expect will be fixed by 4.2. >People(not just Brett) need to look at features and benefits when deciding >what version to run, not some magical number that gets incremented every now >and then. Believe me, we do. For the moment, I and my clients have agreed that the amount of time it takes to get to a .2 release, under the current numbering system, is usually sufficient to make a development branch of FreeBSD "seasoned" and ready for the production servers. This is an approximation and a judgment call that is by no means set in stone! In the 3.x-STABLE branch, we did NOT install 3.2 because we saw problems in it. We waited a bit longer. Many of the machines got 3.3 and even 3.4. This time, we are hoping to go with 4.2 because we're eager for the TCP/IP and VM improvements. The kernel is bigger but the RAM seems to be worth it. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20001003161654.00de6b60>