From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 12 08:32:46 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A85F106564A for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:32:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@lozenetz.org) Received: from mail.webreality.org (mailserver.webreality.org [217.75.141.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E9E8FC0C for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:32:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@lozenetz.org) Received: from [10.0.1.101] (unknown [87.121.18.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.webreality.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E781522CE3; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:32:39 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <4850DF22.9080802@lozenetz.org> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:32:34 +0300 From: Anton - Valqk User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> <484FA07E.60103@lozenetz.org> <20080611164704.J40102@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20080611164704.J40102@fledge.watson.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-HostIT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-HostIT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-HostIT-MailScanner-From: lists@lozenetz.org Cc: Andy Kosela , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:32:46 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote: > >> I fully agree with the lines below. >> As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features, >> than making releases rock solid stable. > ... >> Ah, another thing, >> I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails for quite >> long. >> I've tested it on a test server, worked perfect, but on production I >> don't want to patch my base. >> there are few other features to jals that never got commited in base, >> and as I said I don't want to patch it... > > The reason that the virtualization patches aren't in the tree is > precisely *because* we care about stability and are willing to slow > down feature development in order to accomplish it. Some features take > years to stabilize, and just because a patch works OK in your > environment doesn't mean it will work in everyone's. Moderating the > rate at which we adopt agressive new features is part of an > intentional strategy to avoid letting development trees destabilize to > a point where it's unproductive. > I totally agree with that point, just commented that it's been year(s) since its appearence an maybe not enought effort in it (just an outsider thought, can't know if it is) and the fueature is a really really great and nice one! > Robert N M Watson > Computer Laboratory > University of Cambridge > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.