Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:05:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris BeHanna <behanna@zbzoom.net> To: FreeBSD-Stable <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: is "stable" "stable"? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0107292101450.7317-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107222354320.68200-100000@snafu.adept.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Mike Hoskins wrote:
> If you're not willing to actually read docs, regression test, stage, and
> do 'work' in general... Well, one could argue you get the amount of
> stability you deserve.
Heck, you have to do this with commercial software (e.g.,
Solaris), let alone with free software.
And I repeat my comment from the last time this thread went
around: FreeBSD's response time to critical bugs is the best I've
seen *anywhere*.
Finally, I repeat my earlier suggestion: a commit-free window
around midnight UTC for -STABLE (probably not a bad idea for -CURRENT
too): if a large commit cannot be completed before the window, hold
off for 20 minutes or so until after the window, so that people can
use the -D flag to cvsup (or to cvs) to specify midnight UTC each
night without pulling something over the wire during the middle of a
large commit.
--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "bogus" before responding.)
behanna@bogus.zbzoom.net
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.32.0107292101450.7317-100000>