Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 16:26:07 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@hub.freebsd.org> Cc: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, Joseph Scott <joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu>, Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/finger finger.c Message-ID: <200010032326.e93NQ7H17213@netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20001003155638.B73409@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Lemon wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:40:21PM +0100, Paul Richards wrote: > > > > > > If it's now part of your full-time hattism to worry about this then I > > > hope you'll start spending some number of hours each day in reviewing > > > each and every change which goes into -stable. However many other > > > > I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. The stable team > > wouldn't be putting in a lot of hours reviewing stable commits. Stable > > commits would only occur if the stable team did them i.e. no-one else > > would be allowed to commit to stable. The stable team would then monitor > > -current, noting commits that are bug fixes, and slating them for a MFC > > at a later date when it's felt they've had enough of a shakeout. > > > > Stable would stagnate to some extent, certainly more so than it > > presently does, but I think that's exactly what should happen to a > > stable branch. That's not to say that new features would never make it > > back to the stable branch but they would certainly do so a lot more > > slowly and only if there was real value to them and not just because > > they exist. > > Uh. If only the "-stable" team were allowed to commit to -stable, > then it would quickly become the -stale branch. I think that we had > this at one point with 3.X, and there were lots of complaints. Yes, this is what happened with 3.x and it was a disaster. We must not let this happen again. > -stable is not (IMHO) supposed to be just bugfixes. Doing it that way > would just put more pressure on the developers to shove the next release > line out the door because they want new features. Yes. > If you just want "bugfixes" and no new features, then may I suggest that > you stick with the 3.X branch? No new development or changes go in there, > but you can still pull in critical bug fixes as needed. Then when 5.0 > becomes the -stable branch, you can move on to 4.x. > -- > Jonathan > Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010032326.e93NQ7H17213>