From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 18:11:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA23969 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA23964 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14626; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:10:53 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703180059.RAA09340@rover.village.org> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:11:57 -0600 To: Warner Losh From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >In message Richard Wackerbarth writes: >: It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it >: is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is >: a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" >: product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is >: discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will >: continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality >: product that many of us want it to be. > >If the 2.2 release process was shorter, then I might agree with you. >However, the release has been extensively tested and tuned over the >last several months. It seems to be more stable than the 2.1.x system >that I had for a while. If anything, that shows a high level of >commitment to quality. > >Personally, I like the idea of having -frozen to describe the 2.1.x >tree and bring 2.2.x into the -stable role with 3.0 still being called >-current. 1) Give me a break. 2.1 is NOT "frozen", small updates continue, as they should, to dribble in. I don't think anyone expects anything major to happen. However, let me remind you that the 2.1.7 situation would not have been as much of an issue if we had not been fighting the "frozen" attitude ever since 2.1.5 was released. 2) I agree that 2.2 should not require much public testing time before it reaches the confidence level that will relegate 2.1 to the morgue. However, the CD isn't even in production. Many of the people who will really hit it hard don't even have a copy yet.