From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Jun 10 07:00:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA14857 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 07:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA14486; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 06:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09703; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:55:00 +0300 Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 16:54:59 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi To: "Andrew V. Stesin" cc: hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view In-Reply-To: <199606100845.LAA17470@office.elvisti.kiev.ua> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk CC list trimmed a bit... On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Andrew V. Stesin wrote: > Hi, > > # 2) Couldn't maintaining of stable look like: > # a) The core team suggest that it would be nice if somebody would > # bring feature x over to -stable. > > if the feature mentioned is "new" -- than -stable can't be > officially called "stable" any more. If it isn't -- why waste > time of those great guys who are making FreeBSD? Donate your > own time to do testing if you want to get more > features, isn't it Ok? The whole idea of this statement was quite simple I think - that the core-team wouldn't waste their time on -stable, but would just suggest that a given feature (I don't mean this kernel or userland patch or other) should be brought over to -stable. After which the person (or persons) would do it in their own time. The things wouldn't be new (but already somewhat tested out in -current) and certainly nothing would be commited before it has been tested out. Sander > > -- > > With best regards -- Andrew Stesin. > > +380 (44) 2760188 +380 (44) 2713457 +380 (44) 2713560 > > "You may delegate authority, but not responsibility." > Frank's Management Rule #1. >