From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 20 14:11:21 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA10151 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:11:21 -0700 Received: from sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu (sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu [130.245.1.47]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA10145 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 14:11:15 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id RAA04454; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 17:10:56 -0400 Received: (from gene@localhost) by starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA08175; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 17:10:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 17:10:31 -0400 From: Gene Stark Message-Id: <199504202110.RAA08175@starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu> To: cs.weber.edu!terry@sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu CC: FreeBSD.org!hackers@sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu In-reply-to: Terry Lambert's message of Thu, 20 Apr 95 11:27:26 MDT <9504201727.AA25462@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley. Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Let it be forever noted that 2.0 was an exception. It was a rush job >that was done to appease legal requirements and to keep the FreeBSD >efforts afloat at the same time avoiding legal action by USL. It >had the nice side effect of resolving the legal issues for Walnut Creek >at the same time, which can only be a good thing, given the backing >they have provided. > >It was not the result of problems endemic to a release process. I disagree with this, as the prior release that was burned into CD-ROM (1.1) IMHO was also an inferior release due to a rushed testing phase. Release 1.1.5.1, which is the best release to date, was essentially the result of testing and bug fixes applied to 1.1. Every time the beta phase of a release has been shrunk to zero, I have complained. I usually see everyone say "I'll *never* allow this to happen again," but by the time the of the next release, the same thing has happened again. It is my impression that the same thing is happening right now with 2.0.5. I gave out nearly all the 100 FreeBSD 1.1 CD-ROMs that Jordan kindly sent, however, as I did it I had to tell people, "If you get interested in this, you probably want to get the 1.1.5.1 version, because otherwise you will find yourself screwing around with trying to get your printer and serial ports to work, and this stuff has been fixed in 1.1.5.1." Recently, I have been telling people who have asked me about FreeBSD, "wait and get the 2.1 CD-ROM, it should be out shortly, and it looks to be pretty good." This was based on what I saw in the mailing lists, which about a month ago said "we forsee no other major functionality changes in 2.1 other than the disk slice code". But now 2.1 is going to have devfs and a bunch of other stuff that darn well looks to me like "major functionality changes." I will be sort of embarrassed if everyone I told to get the next WC CD-ROM goes and gets one that is put together in a rush job, and they all then come and ask me the equivalent of the "PPP makes my system crash" question for 2.0. My feeling is that a system version from approximately April 7 would be a good one to use as a base for 2.0.5. Check out that release, put it out for beta test, integrate bug fixes only, and burn it into the CD-ROM. - Gene Stark