From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 17 10:13:40 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA11140 for current-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 10:13:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from hauki.clinet.fi (root@hauki.clinet.fi [194.100.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA11133 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 10:13:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from plentium.clinet.fi (plentium.clinet.fi [194.100.0.7]) by hauki.clinet.fi (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id UAA29875; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 20:13:13 +0200 Received: (hsu@localhost) by plentium.clinet.fi (8.6.12/8.6.4) id UAA16727; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 20:17:13 +0200 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 20:17:13 +0200 Message-Id: <199512171817.UAA16727@plentium.clinet.fi> From: Heikki Suonsivu To: Mark Hittinger Cc: current@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Mark Hittinger's message of 17 Dec 1995 18:57:59 +0200 Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? (fwd) Organization: Clinet Ltd, Espoo, Finland Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Perhaps we need a 2.1-stable, 2.2-performance, and a 2.3-boom :-) 2.3-boom could be the new wild west :-) I know there is a disk space issue. The problem is that people are committing broken code into source tree without testing it. There should never be need for more than two threads, one which is being stabilized and one development. Both of them should be workable when checked out. As CVS makes doing separate testing trees easy, there should be no reason for untested code ever be committed? -- Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@clinet.fi work +358-0-4375209 fax -4555276 home -8031121