From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr 21 12:25:17 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA16860
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:25:17 -0700
Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA16854
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 12:25:12 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.11/8.6.11) id NAA13261; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:28:31 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:28:31 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199504211928.NAA13261@trout.sri.MT.net>
In-Reply-To: Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk>
       "Re: Release stability (fwd)" (Apr 21,  8:03pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
To: Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk>,
        jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Release stability (fwd)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > In the old DEC world there was a three piece cycle that was followed
> > > many times.  A feature release followed by a robustness release.  There
> > > was also a performance release that followed the robustness release.

> > Yes, I think that a new/stable/fast cycle of 3 has a lot to be said
> > for it.  What would people say to us going to the following numbering
> > scheme in support of this?
> > 
> > <rel>.<0,1,2[,3..]>[.<snap>]
> 
> This is a very nice idea but it's going to take a lot of organisation on
> our part....
> We don't currently have people interested in
> doing that sort of thing, everyone wants to play with the new toys.

Actually, I'd be interested in doing such a thing except that I wouldn't
have the time to do it right.  I think you could find some folks who'd
be willing to put the time in, but the problem is more of a technical
problem.

The people who are qualified to accept/reject kernel patches don't have
the time to check the patches out.  This was obvious in the 1.X -> 2.X
phase when folks posted patches.  David didn't have the time to
back-port patches he had made to the new code which existed in the
previous code.

I'm afraid this would be the same problem we're facing now.


Nate