Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:45:42 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <199703180245.TAA09842@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:11:57 CST." <l03010d01af539a33b8dd@[208.2.87.4]> References: <l03010d01af539a33b8dd@[208.2.87.4]> Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." <l03010d00af53952588d5@[208.2.87.4]> <l03010d00af53952588d5@[208.2.87.4]> Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <l03010d01af539a33b8dd@[208.2.87.4]> Richard Wackerbarth writes: : 1) Give me a break. 2.1 is NOT "frozen", small updates continue, as they : should, : to dribble in. I don't think anyone expects anything major to happen. : However, let me remind you that the 2.1.7 situation would not have been : as much of an issue if we had not been fighting the "frozen" attitude ever : since 2.1.5 was released. I think we have different definitions of frozen :-). The main reason that 2.1.x must die now that 2.2 has been released is that no one seems to be carefully checking the changes to it, nor do people even bother to backport anything except critical security fixes any more. It is draining effort that should be placed into 2.2 and making -current better. I understand your frustration with the situation. The FreeBSD project bit off more than it could chew on the whole 2.1.x branch. It is very hard to keep two branches around for so long and have a good, high quality product at the end of that game. The 2.1.x branch has become very difficult to work this due to its large divergence from the 2.2 branch. If there was anybody that was actively maintaining it and acting as release engineer for that branch, it would be different. There isn't. No one came forward to dedicate the huge amount of time it would have taken, so 2.1.x is in disarray. Given that FreeBSD is a volunteer orgainization, there needs to be a dedication of some person or persons to make something happen over the long haul. If competent people are not available to do this, then your only other recourse is to pay someone to keep the branch alive. If there is sufficient interest in doing this, I know several competent people that would be more than happy to do what it takes to keep 2.1.x alive a little while longer. However, these people, myself included, are all consultants and need to be paid for the work that is done. With all due respect to those that desire 2.1.x to continue, it likely will not continue unless someone is paid to do it. History has shown that no one is motived enough out of enlightened self interest to keep it up to date, so that's the next step. In fact, several months ago I made a public offer to commit any bug fixes that people specifically sent to me into the 2.1.x tree. So far no body has taken me up on my offer. I'm not sure why that is, but it doesn't seem to indicate a high level of desire in that user community to see it continue to be improved. : 2) I agree that 2.2 should not require much public testing time before : it reaches the confidence level that will relegate 2.1 to the morgue. : However, the CD isn't even in production. Many of the people who will really : hit it hard don't even have a copy yet. There will be a transition period as 2.2 penetrates the market. Once that process is complete, barring any really horrible 2.2 bugs, 2.2 will be the new gold standard that people will install, not 2.1.7R + patches. I'm sorry if you have trouble with the 2.1.x branch is dead attitude. I tried to help that and found I was fighting a losing battle. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703180245.TAA09842>