From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 19 17:22:15 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id RAA03472 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 17:22:15 -0700 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA03466 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 17:22:11 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.11/8.6.11) id SAA06020; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 18:26:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 18:26:03 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199504200026.SAA06020@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Peter Dufault "Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley." (Apr 19, 8:12pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Peter Dufault , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley. Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I think 6 month releases with 3 month bug fix releases (4 releases > per year) would be great and almost impossible to actually do, and > would be a good target. I'd like to throw my support for this as well. I'd like to see 'major' releases every 6 months with the next release being a bug-fix only release. However, I don't think it'll happen simply because most folks aren't willing to wait 3 months after a major release to introduce new functionality, and the only other solution is to have 2 active branches of the tree which CVS doesn't do well. In spite of the technical shortcomings, I think this is something worth investigating, as it would allow one person to be the release engineer for *one* release which would be the initial release, and then followup bug-fix release. Someone else could be the next release engineer. Unfortunately, I think the administration nightmare of two different groups working in parallel would only hinder progress. Geeze, I sound like someone with multiple personalities, don't I? Nate