Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 19:13:15 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, frank@our.domaintje.com, tcobb@staff.circle.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Softupdate for 2.2.6? Message-ID: <199804060013.TAA01657@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199804052201.PAA27114@usr05.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Apr 5, 98 10:01:33 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > No implication of centralized control over third party patches was > > intended. I am simply saying that each task is hard enough to do that > > it's highly unlikely that the questioner will see such patches > > released. > > > > > > Q. Will any of the following features ever be in 2.2.x, even as > > > > 3rd party patches? > > > > > > > > A. 1. Soft Updates: No. > > > > 2. CAM: No. > > > > 3. SMP: No (you didn't ask, but I figured while I was making > > > > a list... :-) > > > > > > since when is anyone in control of third party patches ? > > > (i mean except licensing restrictions). If some good soul wants to do > > > the backport and provide a patchfile, i don't see any problem with > > > that. I understand that you are being realistic and "No" means "I don't > > > think we'll ever find someone willing to do the backport" > > If patches were provided, say for soft updates, would they be > integrated, or would thy have to remain "third party"? > IMO, we have already hacked 2.2.X too much. It is time to use it as purely a stability release only. John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804060013.TAA01657>