From owner-freebsd-current Sat Aug 4 17:55:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from citusc17 (citusc17.usc.edu [128.125.38.177]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF13D37B401; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:55:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@citusc17) Received: (from kris@localhost) by citusc17 (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f750tM118189; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 17:55:22 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Brian Somers Cc: Josef Karthauser , Nik Clayton , Neil Ford , Paul Richards , freebsd-users@uk.freebsd.org, Brian Somers , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should developers run current ? (was: XDM and X) Message-ID: <20010804175522.C18102@citusc17.usc.edu> References: <200108050026.f750QYu96221@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200108050026.f750QYu96221@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>; from brian@Awfulhak.org on Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 01:26:34AM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 01:26:34AM +0100, Brian Somers wrote: > Back in the old days -stable was reserved for bug fixes and some=20 > features/enhancements. ABI and API changes weren't allowed. When=20 > someone made a mistake, they got the same clout across the back of=20 > the head that they do now, but things didn't break that often because=20 > relatively less was MFC'd. This discussion comes up periodically (usually, once per code freeze ;-) I don't think the high rate of MFCs mostly occurs because developers develop on -stable, it's because the branch can't be allowed to diverge too much from -current or porting of bugfixes becomes difficult (especially kernel bugfixes, but also other actively-developed or heavily modified systems). Many people feel seem to that the fact that this divergence was allowed to creep in between the 3.x/4.0-CURRENT branches contributed heavily to the continued poor stability of the 3.x branch towards the second half of its release cycle when it should be expected instead to mature and stabilize. If the developers all run -current, and -current is incompatible with -stable, then -stable also suffers in quality. There's a balance which needs to be struck. I run -stable on several systems and regularly upgrade. I haven't encountered sudden instability, incompatibility or sudden onset of problems. Personally, I don't think things are so bad in -stable land. Kris --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7bJl6Wry0BWjoQKURAlSNAKC5jkRBMpFcUxbuEED5iZafMrXJ8gCg0gjT b51l1qd2yY3V/9D4dZ3a644= =vTv0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --69pVuxX8awAiJ7fD-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message