Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:00:13 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? Message-ID: <3DD849AD.3DA0DB45@mindspring.com> References: <20021117200904.R23359-100000@hub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > Marc writes: > > > ... I'd put all my servers back to -STABLE in a > > > minute if I thought someone cared when it crashed ... > > > > Almost nobody enjoys debugging, and when people are not being paid to do > > it, it's almost impossible to motivate anyone to undertake it. > > Then, those ppl shouldn't be MFC'ng code down into stable if they aren't > willing to be responsible for problems that such causes ... The definition of of "-STABLE" is "-RELEASE, plus bug fixes". The real issue is that most bugfix work is done against -STABLE in the first place, because that's what people are deploying; I don't know one commercial company who has -current deployed in production. The only reason MFC'ing happens at all is that TPTB refuse to accept patches against -STABLE, and require them to be patches against -CURRENT, instead, and the only way to get something into -STABLE is to port your patch to -CURRENT, and then "MFC" it into -STABLE. If it weren't for this requirement, pretty much no one would work on -CURRENT at all. It's a reasonable "self dense" mechanism for the project to have this requirement, even if it's often a pain in the butt, especially when the "port + MFC" doesn't end up with the same -STABLE patch that you started out with. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DD849AD.3DA0DB45>