Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:48:23 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua> Cc: stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua, hackers@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960610184205.10709B-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199606101441.RAA11918@office.elvisti.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Andrew V. Stesin wrote: > # > # CC list trimmed a bit... > # > Thanks, sorry, I didn't mention. > > # > if the feature mentioned is "new" -- than -stable can't be > # > officially called "stable" any more. If it isn't -- why waste > # > time of those great guys who are making FreeBSD? Donate your > # > own time to do testing if you want to get more > # > features, isn't it Ok? > # > # The whole idea of this statement was quite simple I think - that the > # core-team wouldn't waste their time on -stable, but would just suggest > # that a given feature (I don't mean this kernel or userland patch or > # other) should be brought over to -stable. After which the person (or > # persons) would do it in their own time. The things wouldn't be new (but > # already somewhat tested out in -current) and certainly nothing would be > # commited before it has been tested out. > > No, I meant that anything more than a "simple bugfixes" as a > post-release branch will take way more efforts from the men who > are actually taking care of that source tree. What for if nobody > pays? This isn't "fun", as many persons already mentioned. > > And if you, an me, and whoever else, overall -- more than a > half of the FreeBSD user community, 2/3 probably -- will spend > time on backporting features from -current to "stable", who on the > Earth will do a thorough testing of -current itself? > The overall progress of FreeBSD will be slowed down, 'cause > no way for -current to become really stable and clean until "-stable" > is alive. > > That's what I meant. Sure. My approach is the "conservative" one. If that what I suggested would be called a rule system, then there surely was a rule for the case -stable didn't move on fast enough. And it will move fast enough only if there are people *willing* to deal -stable. -stable can't and never will replace -current (at least IMHO). But anything released surely should be stable... Sander > > -- > > With best regards -- Andrew Stesin. > > +380 (44) 2760188 +380 (44) 2713457 +380 (44) 2713560 > > "You may delegate authority, but not responsibility." > Frank's Management Rule #1. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960610184205.10709B-100000>