From owner-cvs-all Wed Jun 28 18:10:13 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9746E37BAC6; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA44355; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:10:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Doug Barton Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: backporting to 3.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > Is there going to be a policy regarding what to backport to > 3.5? My understanding was that once the 3.5-RELEASE tag was laid down all > that would go back would be bug/security fixes. My personal opinion is > that if we backport too much we reduce the users' motivation to move to > 4.x, not to mention the maintenance problems as a discouragement to > committers who do feature development. We still sometimes merge back 2.2 and even 2.1 - it's really a matter of whether the committer is motivated to do so (e.g. if they have machines which need the change). What has dropped is the level of expectation that committers should merge their applicable changes back (not that many people follow this). Kris -- In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate. -- Charles Forsythe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message