From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Apr 20 19:16:17 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA20056
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:16:17 -0700
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA20043
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:16:08 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA14153
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Thu, 20 Apr 1995 20:53:17 -0500
Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA03659; 20 Apr 95 19:21:46 CDT (Thu)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id TAA03656; Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:21:46 -0500
From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com>
Message-Id: <199504210021.TAA03656@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley.
To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:21:45 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
In-Reply-To: <7175.798406484@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Apr 20, 95 12:34:44 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1203      
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I was involved peripherally in the 4.1x BSD releases, mainly because they
had all these silly little scripts they needed written and us undergrads were
easy prey. 

> We are on the hook to make 2.1 everything 1.1.5.1 is and now it looks
> like we'll be doing that all the way up through June.  This is only
> right and proper since that's genuinely how long it's going to take to
> do a 1.1.5.1 equivalent,

Bravo! I salute you!

> but this still leaves things like the
> upcoming 2.0.6 unaccounted for.  How do we deal with this in the
> future so that it's not such a mess?

(1) 2.0 was released too early. A lot of the changes subsequent to 2.0 should
    have been in 2.0. We know why 2.0 was released when it was. That's not
    a problem.

(2) There should have been a 2.0.1 release prior to the inclusion of the slice
    code.

(3) There should be interim releases prior to the addition of *any* major
    functionality. That includes devfs.

(4) The snaps should be kept up, to keep interest up.

FreeBSD looks to me very much like 4BSD was between 4.1 and 4.2. A lot of *new*
stuff is going in, and it's hurting stability. A series of interim releases
when new stuff begins to gel are needed.