From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 10 03:14:19 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFEA16A4BF
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au
	(c211-28-27-130.belrs2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.28.27.130])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D2643FBF
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au)
Received: from cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (localhost.alcatel.com.au
	[127.0.0.1])h8AAEEgh004980;	Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:14:14 +1000 (EST)
	(envelope-from jeremyp@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au)
Received: (from jeremyp@localhost)
	by cirb503493.alcatel.com.au (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8AAEAOX004979;
	Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:14:10 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:14:10 +1000
From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20030910101410.GA4964@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
References: <5148.1063174847@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5148.1063174847@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: The struct buf junta met...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:14:19 -0000

On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 08:20:47AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>With the 5-stable branch (still) being 3-4 in the future, we want
                                           ^^ days, months, years?
>to get as much as the API changes into the stable branch as possible,
>in order to not do another "3.x mistake".

Sounds reasonable but how much will all these new features further
delay 5-stable whilst the bugs are ironed out?  I agree that 3.x
caused heartache but having an "almost -stable" 5.x branch doesn't
help either.

Peter