From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jun 7 11:48:21 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA09302 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unix.stylo.it (unix.stylo.it [193.76.98.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA09297 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:48:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from servernt.stylo.it (servernt.stylo.it [193.76.98.4]) by unix.stylo.it (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA00841 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:48:29 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by servernt.stylo.it with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.12.736) id <01BB54B2.675AB3D0@servernt.stylo.it>; Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:46:29 +0200 Message-ID: From: Angelo Turetta To: "'freebsd-hackers'" Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:48:41 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.12.736 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BB54B2.675C3A70" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. Contact your mail administrator for information about upgrading your reader to a version that supports MIME. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB54B2.675C3A70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I'm not really hacking the system, but I let you know my opinion, for what >it's worth. > >Greg Lehey writes: >>1. -current and -stable diverge too much. This means that -stable >> really isn't, it's -dusty, and the occasions on which -current >> updates get folded into -stable are fiascos like we've experienced >> in the last week. That wasn't the intention. >> >>2. -current goes through periods of greater and less stability. It's >> not practical for somebody who wants to run a stable system to >> track -current. On the other hand, the more stable periods of >> -current work very well. > >Wouldn't this be solved by burning more -SNAP releases ? >I've thought many times about upgrading my system to -stable, but instead i >jumped directly on 960501-SNAP, because it provides more features I really >needed (BSDI 2.0 binaries, or 3C590 support, just to make some example) >I'd like very much to see a -SNAP every month or so (let's say, upon every >'more stable periods of -current'), and a smart way to apply a set of >bug-fixes, should they be needed before the next -SNAP or -RELEASE (read: >security holes, kernel code locking the system etc...) > >Yes, I understand the work needed to package a SNAP is not small, but it >would provide a good service to those, like me, who cannot simply rebuild >everything every day. > >Hope this helps. >Angelo > > >----------------------------------------------------------------- > Angelo Turetta mailto:aturetta@stylo.it > Stylo Multimedia - Bologna - Italy http://www.stylo.it/ > > ------ =_NextPart_000_01BB54B2.675C3A70--