From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Nov 17 18: 1:53 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF0E37B401 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42BBE43E75 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:01:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0277.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.43.22] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18DbEU-0006DA-00; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:01:51 -0800 Message-ID: <3DD849AD.3DA0DB45@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:00:13 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: FreeBSD Chat Subject: Re: FreeBSD: Server or Desktop OS? References: <20021117200904.R23359-100000@hub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "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