Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 13:14:23 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Studded <Studded@san.rr.com>, ac199@hwcn.org, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@ucb.crimea.ua>, nick@foobar.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Problem reports closed by Poul-Henning Kamp [was: Re: misc/6712] Message-ID: <13394.895954463@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 May 1998 20:31:38 BST." <E0ydK14-0003Uf-00@oak66.doc.ic.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have a better suggestion: don't commit fixes to either -stable or
> -current unless you are prepared to commit to both. Obviously this rule
But that model breaks down for a lot of situations. I don't want to
encourage people to just slam-bam commit everything into -stable that
goes into -current since it's:
A) inappropriate in a number of cases (there are quite a few
things which will NEVER be merged to -stable and should not be)
B) not something which should happen until something has been
TESTED in -current first.
Merging has to happen, yes, but in only a structured way which has
committers willing to make notes to themselves about committing things
into -stable after a suitable grace period and/or only when it's
clearly suitable to -stable.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13394.895954463>