Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:46:03 +0200 From: Lefteris Tsintjelis <lefty@ene.asda.gr> To: Richard Caley <rjc@interactive.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -STABLE was stable for long time (Re: FreeBSD: Server or DesktopOS?) Message-ID: <3DD8FD2B.8A95364E@ene.asda.gr> References: <20021118090627.B23359-100000@hub.org> <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr> <87k7jbuhfl.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Caley wrote: > > In article <3DD8E8E2.BB8A709A@ene.asda.gr>, Lefteris Tsintjelis (lt) writes: > > lt> If its a matter of "never committed at all" (I do have a few doubts on this one) > lt> then I guess I have no other choice here but -STABLE or at least some other branch > lt> that is at least maintained. So, which one might that be? > > If STABLE has become de-facto a development branch, and RELEASE needs > to remain rack solid so it can be treated as having had all the > pre-release testing on it, making people reluctant to put in any but > the safest fixes, perhaps it would be a good idea if there were a > system of official patches to RELEASE. These could come with a proviso > that they have been tested to STABLE standards, but not to RELEASE > standards, but if you absolutely need the fix... I think the best thing is to keep things as simple as possible. That would probably complicate things even further for a not so expert user. I personally think that a fix should always be a fix and should apply to all (-STABLE or -RELEASE or whatever reliable or not branch might that be). It is only a matter if you have been bitten by it or not. 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?3DD8FD2B.8A95364E>