Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 13:28:31 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Paul Richards <paul@isl.cf.ac.uk>, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Release stability (fwd) 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)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504211928.NAA13261>