From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 1 11:42:43 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from shattered.disturbed.net (shattered.disturbed.net [192.139.81.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E41C15101 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:42:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from veers@disturbed.net) Received: from shattered.disturbed.net ([192.139.81.180]:62724 "EHLO shattered" ident: "IDENT-NONSENSE") by disturbed.net with ESMTP id <61519-279>; Sat, 1 May 1999 14:47:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 14:47:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Perel To: paul@originative.co.uk Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: -stable vs -current (was Re: solid NFS patch #6... ) In-Reply-To: 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 Sat, 1 May 1999 paul@originative.co.uk wrote: > The -stable branch shouldn't have anything done to it, that's my whole > point, we shouldn't be merging stuff back into the -stable branch, only fix > specific straightforward problems that don't require complete > re-engineering. No new features means stagnation in development. It means that someone coming to FreeBSD and looking for a feature will only find it in -current, which, by virtue of being -current, will have other miscellaneous problems. This person gets annoyed and leaves. This is the _LAST_ thing we need right now. Your idea of -beta is exactly the idea of -stable. If you want something that is only receiving bugfixes, run 2.2.x. It's in maintanance mode now. > Then what happens to -stable, is it going to get thouroughly tested with all > these changes? You're currently treating -stable as a "beta stable" in that > users who track it are being used as beta testers to find the bugs caused by > merges from current. There's no track for "really stable" users who want to > pick up necessary bug fixes. Gosh, I was under the impression that every FreeBSD user was a beta tester... :) It's inevitable that bugs will be found in -stable more quickly than in -current, simply because -stable has a much larger user base. Just think back to the days after 3.0-RELEASE and the myriad of bug reports that suddenly came in because the level of usage for that code skyrocketed. Alex G. Perel -=- AP5081 alexp@iplink.net -=- (work) veers@disturbed.net -=- (play) Disturbed Networks - Powered exclusively by FreeBSD == The Power to Serve -=- http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message