Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:49:49 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Anton - Valqk <lists@lozenetz.org> Cc: Andy Kosela <andy.kosela@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3 Message-ID: <20080611164704.J40102@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <484FA07E.60103@lozenetz.org> References: <3cc535c80806080449q3ec6e623v8603e9eccc3ab1f2@mail.gmail.com> <484FA07E.60103@lozenetz.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote: > I fully agree with the lines below. > As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features, > than making releases rock solid stable. ... > Ah, another thing, > I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails for quite long. > I've tested it on a test server, worked perfect, but on production I don't > want to patch my base. > there are few other features to jals that never got commited in base, and as > I said I don't want to patch it... The reason that the virtualization patches aren't in the tree is precisely *because* we care about stability and are willing to slow down feature development in order to accomplish it. Some features take years to stabilize, and just because a patch works OK in your environment doesn't mean it will work in everyone's. Moderating the rate at which we adopt agressive new features is part of an intentional strategy to avoid letting development trees destabilize to a point where it's unproductive. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080611164704.J40102>