Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:20:12 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: jdw@wwwi.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <199610161820.LAA03305@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199610160339.NAA29329@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Oct 16, 96 01:09:40 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> And are you really as strapped for time as you think? Could you spend > an hour a week reading commit messages looking for important changes, > and trying them out? If ten or fifteen users with your sort of > interest could spend that sort of time on the project, you could keep > someone like Nate quite busy doing the actual committing. As a bonus, > because you were in a position where you were providing the changes, > you could prioritise the ones you provided to address your primary > concerns. As a result, everyone would benefit. I was under the impression that this is what is already done for current, and is the distinguishing attribute for deciding if someone gets commit priveledges or not. It seems to me that applying this standard (with no additional improvement to the process by which it is applied) will only result in a stable which mimics the stability of -current ...ie: it will not be worthy of the name. Stable is stable because, as a release candidate, it was pounded upon by many people. I, for one, am not willing to downgrade my machine to enable me to pound on additional candidates for stable in order to make this proposed process work. I suspect that the majority of people on these lists are of the same opinion. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610161820.LAA03305>