Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:36:30 +0100 (MET) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.gun.de> To: julian@jhome.DIALix.COM (Julian Elischer) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, jkh@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? Message-ID: <199512171736.SAA03816@knobel.gun.de> In-Reply-To: <199512171542.XAA02873@jhome.DIALix.COM> from "Julian Elischer" at Dec 17, 95 11:42:38 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Julian and the others !
> I do dissagree. -current is exceptionally stable for what it is...
Ok, but other people seem to dislike little surprises
Among them Jordan and Paul. But what counts more, people, that
would otherwise like to join -current as I described.
> Usually this is pilot error. It usually requires the user to
> compile more or check their configuration.....
Here I disagree. As Jordan already mentioned, it should be normal,
to incorporate only those changes into the current tree, that are
locally tested. Normally you cam only test something, that does
compile. If changes doesn't compile, then it's a sign for either
- not tested or
- tested in a too small scope
> Sometimes it's something due to the symbol space cleanup
> going on, but I tyhink this is vastly overstated..
Then it would be interesting to me, to hear from Martin Cracauer,
why he is currently not interested in getting current. Perhaps
some patches are really done too loosey or whatever.
> the -current kernel is in a successfully compilabel state
> 90% of the time.. from my commercial experience I'd say this is a
> REMARKABLE achievement..
Well the whole FreeBSD project is a very very good one and I'm
really happy to have such a wonderful and stable OS running here.
But that's not the point.
Current should be brought into a state, that more people are
motivated to sup and install it. The goal is, to get some more
good programmers into the boat.
> No the code that is SO green that it cashes the systems should
> be tested in people's private trees..
Yes. And in addition to that: changes should be tested. It's
not necessary, that other people can't compile the system after
supping those changes.
> what we have now is working fine...
> if you can't cope with the TINY hickups happenning
> then you should stay with -stable (2.1) and develope with that..
> and 'merge the new driver to -curent later.
On the other hand ... If -current would become more stable, then
more people would use it. This would have the advantage, that
feedback on new code would come much earlier. This would have a
big advantage shortly before a release schedule.
The quality of SNAP shots would improve, possibly one wouldn't
need as many SNAP's.
--
andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH
Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ - Support Unix - aklemm@wup.de -
\/
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz
apsfilter - magic print filter 4lpd >>> knobel is powered by FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512171736.SAA03816>