Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 17:35:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com (Rodney W. Grimes) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/disktab and stuff Message-ID: <199508310035.RAA01381@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199508310004.RAA09965@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Aug 30, 95 05:04:31 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have to side with rod on this... dding a crucially missing item in sysinstall is ok.. (could be considered a bugfix) rewriting it is a bad idea.. bringing in a new editor is a bad idea, (unless the old one is still there) > > > > says in kernel issues and ii) no new functionality of _ANY_ kind > was to be added to this branch, it was to be a bugfix against 2.0.5. > > b) ee is new green code, not sutible for production release, it's been > in the tree 24 hours and has had a rash of commits, not a good > canidate for release, lickely to put egg on our face. (unless it can squeeze in AS WELL as vi..) (may people can't run vi... do you blame them:) ) > > I don't want it done ``better and faster'' for 2.1, I want it done slow > and correct for 2.2. We have known quantity and quality code with sysinstall > now document the hell out of the bugs, fix the clear cut ones (even gotta > be very carefull doing that or you add one while removing one :-() 2.1 should have 'known bugfixes for 2.0.5' and 'easily fixable oversights for the install of 2.0.5' julian > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508310035.RAA01381>