From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jun 8 14:13:10 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA19479 for current-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mole.mole.org (marmot.mole.org [204.216.57.191]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19469; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mole.mole.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA05873; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 21:11:39 GMT Received: from meerkat.mole.org(206.197.192.110) by mole.mole.org via smap (V1.3) id sma005869; Sat Jun 8 21:11:15 1996 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by meerkat.mole.org (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA19115; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:11:14 -0700 Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 14:11:14 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" Message-Id: <199606082111.OAA19115@meerkat.mole.org> To: terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Inre: function of -stable > > 1) we acknowled the function of -stable to be as an intermediate > tree, between -release and -current Maybe. Maybe not. Depends upon 4, below. > 2) we posit that the relationship -stable bears to -release vs. > that it bears to -current is generally acknowledged to be > indeterminate at this time, with cause cited as there being > a dichotomy in administrative policy applied to -stable that > has not been resolved Yep. > 3) we posit that the relationship goals for -current and -release > are conflicting, and that this is the source of the policy > dichotomy What? > 4) we conclude that the function of -stable needs to be defined, > since it is meeting neiter relationship criteria to the > general satisfaction of the parties involved Empahtic YEP. > 5) we note that one potential resoloution would be to eliminate > the implied -stable/-current relationship entirely (as has > been proposed by others) in favor of causing -current itself > to fulfill that role by meeting the -stable buildability > criteria, assuming the previously referenced problems are > resolved first > I suggest that it's not only the buildability of stable, but the crashlessness and bugfixedness of stable that's important. There is a real place for a bugfixed incarnation of the previous release. Curent may build fine, but if it crashes or bumps, it doesn't make it as a stable system. As it should be. This is not just a FreeBSD problem. I haven't seen a single commercial vendor that manages to provide a solution to this problem that is worth a hill of warm horse manure. -- Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874 Better is the enemy of Good