Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:08:48 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Day <toasty@home.dragondata.com> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: david@aps-services.com, paul@originative.co.uk, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <199904302208.RAA07422@home.dragondata.com> In-Reply-To: <199904302157.OAA01083@dingo.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Apr 30, 1999 2:57: 3 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > To sum it all up is there any difference between the branches? > > Yes. We hope that people like you will help us by participating in the > testing of potential releases _before_ they go out as releases, not > _afterwards_. > > Sitting around doing nothing and then complaining after the fact > doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself. > This isn't meant in a bad way, but let me share with you my experiences. Before 3.0 was released, I said several times "Hey, NFS got a lot worse on -CURRENT. Is anyone looking at this?" and got several replies of "Duh, this is -CURRENT. Don't whine about it. If you're trying to use this in a production environment, you're crazy." After 3.0 was released, I said "Hey, 3.0 got released, and NFS was still broken", to which I got "Why didn't you bug us about this before the release?" and/or "Why didn't you test this before release?" I understand NFS is a 'special' problem, but for those of us not in the trenches coding, I think the '3-level' system would be better. -CURRENT for those who are coding, -BETA for people like me to test things and bring up what broke, and -RELEASE for everyone else. I honestly don't know when to bring up things like that, now. :) Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199904302208.RAA07422>