Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:53:26 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> Cc: sos@freebsd.dk, tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de (Thomas Gellekum), cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 cons.c cons.h src/sys/i386/isa vesa.c src/sys/i386/include console.h src/sys/alpha/al Message-ID: <81864.930149606@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:11:10 %2B0900." <199906231311.WAA05127@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Anyway, if we strictly stick to the principle that -STABLE only gets > fixes and no enhancement, this update won't be merged to -STABLE. > > But, we find it fixes some problems in -STABLE (I don't know if there > is any, though), we might contemplate MFC. Just by way of clarification: The principle is that -stable only gets fixes to existing systems which can be considered to work and/or improvements which do not result in any significant interface change. In other words, we're supposed to be the ideal road workers in stable - we're allowed to repair the roads just so long as we do it only when no one is trying to drive on them and we're not allowed to make the roads any worse. If we're replacing or augmenting something which just plain doesn't work in -stable, we're allowed considerably more leeway since we can't really make things any worse if something is completely broken. I'd also say that syscons doesn't fall into that particular category so I only mention it FYI.. :) - Jordan 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?81864.930149606>