Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 05:01:14 -0500 From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com> To: Michael Robinson <robinson@public.bta.net.cn> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <199606141001.FAA00340@rah.star-gate.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:39:10 %2B0800." <199606140939.RAA12045@public.bta.net.cn>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From The Desk Of Michael Robinson : > >The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that -stable > >is known to be buildable. > > No. The main argument against "let's get rid of -stable" is that kernel > panics are antagonistic to getting real work done. Some people (such as > myself) depend on FreeBSD to do real work. Some people (so far, not myself) > need bug fixes or new features as part of doing real work, and would rather > not wait 15 months between releases. > > >If -current were known to be buildable, > >it would support the argument for getting rid of -stable. > > If release-quality code could be packaged every three months, *that* would > support the argument for getting rid of -stable. Well, I think that we need -stable simply because is a stable base. To develop -current for a long time without taking a "stable" snapshot is really asking for it. As for -stable going away thats fine with me . People who depend on -stable can most likely afford to keep a -stable release till they can justify the cost of switching to -current. The question to ask is: when is -current going to become -stable? Oh and lets trimm the CC for the benefit of those who don't have dup message protection 8) Cheers, Amancio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606141001.FAA00340>