Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:09:58 -0700 From: "Jason Watkins" <jwatkins@firstplan.com> To: "Joe Kelsey" <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us> Cc: "Stable" <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD Message-ID: <JBEOKPCEMKJLMJAKBECCGENLDBAA.jwatkins@firstplan.com> In-Reply-To: <15155.56039.812973.488190@zircon.zircon.seattle.wa.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>Sorry Jason. Adding another tag is *never* going to solve your imaginary problem. I say imaginary because it really is not a problem. You misunderstand me, I was commenting *against* adding another tag, precisely because of what you say: it just moves the problem. >>>This is an organization of *volunteers*. It is up to each and every individual who wants to run FreeBSD to understand the consequences of their actions before starting. I would personally recommend that most people stay away from FreeBSD. It is definitely *not* a turnkey system. Anyone who has an automatic cvsup and rebuild overnight is just asking for trouble. I react rather badly to some of your comments concerning the usability of FreeBSD. Our goal *should* be a simple and turnkey system, or at the least, as close as we can get to that without making an unacceptable compramise. I agree about automatic rebuilds, but that's not what this discussion is about. > Although adding another tag would provide another buffer layer, I > personally feel it's missing the point. Somewhere, someone has to > approve moving things from -current to -stable, and figuring out how > to better equip those people is what I think would bring about the > best situation. >>>Have you ever looked into the committers list? It is simply not possible for there to be any central control over checkins as you describe. The number of projects and people is simply overwhelming. I mean better equip the commiters. Such things are possible, and done every day in the software world. Many aspects of code review and regression testing can be automated. The time of volenteers in the committer group is highly valuable. We should treat it as such, and equip them to the fullest extent possible. Again, what I see as the problem is -stable isn't as stable as some people would like, and the way to attack it is improving the world committers deal with. >>>The way to better equip people is to force them to read the handbook. The way to force them to read the handbook is for them to get surprised by their unthinking actions. FreeBSD is not for tyros. The handbook is not complete documentation, and again this is not what we're talking about. >>>My basic point is that it is not possible to "schedule" the activity in advance due to the changing nature of the source tree. You have to constantly monitor the mailing list and make your own decision based on mailing list traffic. You're not at all following what Mike and I were saying. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?JBEOKPCEMKJLMJAKBECCGENLDBAA.jwatkins>