Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:14:38 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: paul@FreeBSD.org Cc: gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org, pete@sms.fi, davidg@Root.COM, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Which SUP files are available and where ? Message-ID: <21364.811354478@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 17 Sep 1995 15:20:39 BST." <199509171420.PAA02732@server.netcraft.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 2.1 should get abandoned immediately with the exception that a truly killer > bug that is so bad that people can't just work around it until the next relea se > may get fixed with a 2.1.1 update. This seems contradictory. If 2.1 is "abandoned" then where does 2.1.1 come from? I think it goes without saying that 2.1 will have problems which could be fixed in a 2.1.1 and that people will strongly urge us to do so. We *always* have problems with each release. It's a truism. > There should be a freeze date on 2.2 when no more experimental or major > changes are made and after a brief period, say a week or two to make sure it' s > basically safe, it should move over to the stable branch. Once 2.1 is out tha That sounds OK in theory, but it both assumes that 2.2 is going to be ready in a timeframe congruent with when people are expecting "their bugs to be fixed" and that those bugs *will* be fixed in 2.2. Some 3-5 months after 2.1 we WILL be sitting on a list of problems that people are getting impatient with and it will be no trivial matter to just assume that 2.2 will fill the bill. I see experimental changes going into there for awhile yet, and that doesn't translate to the kind of "incrementally debugged" release that 2.1.1 would represent. Given that, well, it still doesn't seem so cut and dried to me. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21364.811354478>