From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 1 0: 8:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9FF14E38 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 00:08:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Received: from localhost (dfr@localhost) by herring.nlsystems.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA96409; Sat, 1 May 1999 08:09:03 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from dfr@nlsystems.com) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 08:09:03 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: Kevin Day Cc: Mike Smith , david@aps-services.com, paul@originative.co.uk, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) In-Reply-To: <199904302208.RAA07422@home.dragondata.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Kevin Day wrote: > > > > > > To sum it all up is there any difference between the branches? > > > > Yes. We hope that people like you will help us by participating in the > > testing of potential releases _before_ they go out as releases, not > > _afterwards_. > > > > Sitting around doing nothing and then complaining after the fact > > doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself. > > > > This isn't meant in a bad way, but let me share with you my experiences. > > Before 3.0 was released, I said several times "Hey, NFS got a lot worse on > -CURRENT. Is anyone looking at this?" and got several replies of "Duh, this > is -CURRENT. Don't whine about it. If you're trying to use this in a > production environment, you're crazy." > > After 3.0 was released, I said "Hey, 3.0 got released, and NFS was still > broken", to which I got "Why didn't you bug us about this before the > release?" and/or "Why didn't you test this before release?" > > I understand NFS is a 'special' problem, but for those of us not in the > trenches coding, I think the '3-level' system would be better. -CURRENT for > those who are coding, -BETA for people like me to test things and bring up > what broke, and -RELEASE for everyone else. > > I honestly don't know when to bring up things like that, now. :) I don't think a 3 branch system is workable for the simple reason that CVS doesn't handle branches at all well. One possible alternative would be the same structure that we have today with the addition of a 'last known good' tag which is on the head branch and slides forward when a feature is deemed 'good'. People who want features but don't want to fix them can use this tag. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message