Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 10:41:00 -0800 (PST) From: Sam Habash <the@llama.com> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: speaking of 3.4... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911231028460.60522-100000@best.llama.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.9911231012010.72429-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> When we're already at 4 releases/year, this is indicitive of a > problem. People want new releases to fix the bugs in the current release. People want new releases to add functionality. Bugfixes happen constantly, that's the whole point to tracking -STABLE and being on this mailing list. > Our release QA is horrible. Look at what Apple does -- they sit on the > release candidate for a *month*, with *no changes at all*, before putting > it gold; we might get a week, and frequently there's last-minute changes > or more obscure nuances that often result in bugs in the release. Maybe Apple can loan the FreeBSD project some QA engineers then. I hear they work for daemon decals in lieu of the many tens of thousands of dollars a year they otherwise tend to ask for, qualified or unqualified, EACH. But you raise a good point: are there people tasked with doing QA work, or are we relying on users to submit PRs? I've always assumed the latter procedure was what was occuring, if not by design, then by necessity. FreeBSD has a different paradigm for releasing its software than commercial concerns, with attendant strengths and weaknesses. I don't really have the knowledge to disagree with your point, but the flip side of your aregument is that going a *month* with *no changes at all* may be unacceptable to the goal of maintaining a -STABLE (if not stable) release. --Sam 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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9911231028460.60522-100000>