From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 19:41:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA28384 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:41:55 -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 TAA28369 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:41:14 -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 VAA19786; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:41:01 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703180245.TAA09842@rover.village.org> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:11:57 CST." 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 21:36:41 -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 At 8:45 PM -0600 3/17/97, Warner Losh wrote: >I'm sorry if you have trouble with the 2.1.x branch is dead attitude. >I tried to help that and found I was fighting a losing battle. Yes, I have trouble with the attitude because it indicates that there is no dedication to the idea that we will ALWAYS try to have a quality product. It seems that the desire is to replace something before anyone has demonstrated that there is a better candidate. Perhaps it is more the prejudicial attitude against the old established system than the reality of the action. I don't think anyone really expects much more to be done to 2.1. However, there is a lot of attitudinal difference in "will die soon" (once 2.2 has had a chance to prove itself) and "is already dead" (even though 2.2 had not yet reached a feature freeze, much less RELEASE and subsequent testing). Remember that people who want stable systems probably want them that way because they are currently doing useful work on them. They don't care if you are about to produce some great improvement. If the current system meets their needs, all they want is the assurance that "you" will try to repair any major holes. However, this "its already dead" demeanor does not instill such confidence.