From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 17 09:37:08 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA09763 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from knobel.gun.de (knobel-ip.gun.de [192.109.159.141]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA09753 Sun, 17 Dec 1995 09:37:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from andreas@localhost) by knobel.gun.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03816; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:36:30 +0100 From: Andreas Klemm Message-Id: <199512171736.SAA03816@knobel.gun.de> Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? To: julian@jhome.DIALix.COM (Julian Elischer) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18:36:30 +0100 (MET) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, jkh@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199512171542.XAA02873@jhome.DIALix.COM> from "Julian Elischer" at Dec 17, 95 11:42:38 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi Julian and the others ! > I do dissagree. -current is exceptionally stable for what it is... Ok, but other people seem to dislike little surprises Among them Jordan and Paul. But what counts more, people, that would otherwise like to join -current as I described. > Usually this is pilot error. It usually requires the user to > compile more or check their configuration..... Here I disagree. As Jordan already mentioned, it should be normal, to incorporate only those changes into the current tree, that are locally tested. Normally you cam only test something, that does compile. If changes doesn't compile, then it's a sign for either - not tested or - tested in a too small scope > Sometimes it's something due to the symbol space cleanup > going on, but I tyhink this is vastly overstated.. Then it would be interesting to me, to hear from Martin Cracauer, why he is currently not interested in getting current. Perhaps some patches are really done too loosey or whatever. > the -current kernel is in a successfully compilabel state > 90% of the time.. from my commercial experience I'd say this is a > REMARKABLE achievement.. Well the whole FreeBSD project is a very very good one and I'm really happy to have such a wonderful and stable OS running here. But that's not the point. Current should be brought into a state, that more people are motivated to sup and install it. The goal is, to get some more good programmers into the boat. > No the code that is SO green that it cashes the systems should > be tested in people's private trees.. Yes. And in addition to that: changes should be tested. It's not necessary, that other people can't compile the system after supping those changes. > what we have now is working fine... > if you can't cope with the TINY hickups happenning > then you should stay with -stable (2.1) and develope with that.. > and 'merge the new driver to -curent later. On the other hand ... If -current would become more stable, then more people would use it. This would have the advantage, that feedback on new code would come much earlier. This would have a big advantage shortly before a release schedule. The quality of SNAP shots would improve, possibly one wouldn't need as many SNAP's. -- andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ - Support Unix - aklemm@wup.de - \/ ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz apsfilter - magic print filter 4lpd >>> knobel is powered by FreeBSD <<<