Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:26:07 -0700
From:      Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
To:        Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@hub.freebsd.org>
Cc:        Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, Joseph Scott <joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu>, Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/finger finger.c 
Message-ID:  <200010032326.e93NQ7H17213@netplex.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20001003155638.B73409@hub.freebsd.org> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:40:21PM +0100, Paul Richards wrote:
> > > 
> > > If it's now part of your full-time hattism to worry about this then I
> > > hope you'll start spending some number of hours each day in reviewing
> > > each and every change which goes into -stable.  However many other
> > 
> > I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. The stable team
> > wouldn't be putting in a lot of hours reviewing stable commits. Stable
> > commits would only occur if the stable team did them i.e. no-one else
> > would be allowed to commit to stable. The stable team would then monitor
> > -current, noting commits that are bug fixes, and slating them for a MFC
> > at a later date when it's felt they've had enough of a shakeout.
> > 
> > Stable would stagnate to some extent, certainly more so than it
> > presently does, but I think that's exactly what should happen to a
> > stable branch. That's not to say that new features would never make it
> > back to the stable branch but they would certainly do so a lot more
> > slowly and only if there was real value to them and not just because
> > they exist.
> 
> Uh.  If only the "-stable" team were allowed to commit to -stable,
> then it would quickly become the -stale branch.  I think that we had
> this at one point with 3.X, and there were lots of complaints.  

Yes, this is what happened with 3.x and it was a disaster.  We must not
let this happen again.

> -stable is not (IMHO) supposed to be just bugfixes.  Doing it that way
> would just put more pressure on the developers to shove the next release
> line out the door because they want new features.

Yes.

> If you just want "bugfixes" and no new features, then may I suggest that
> you stick with the 3.X branch?  No new development or changes go in there, 
> but you can still pull in critical bug fixes as needed.  Then when 5.0
> becomes the -stable branch, you can move on to 4.x.
> --
> Jonathan
> 

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010032326.e93NQ7H17213>