Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:11:02 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971114185945.18833O-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <346CDDE4.5656AEC7@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Julian Elischer wrote: > Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > > > > > > However, like all projects, we've also matured over the last 4+ years > > and with that maturity has come a greater degree of conservatism in > > how we do development and in what we expect from any contributor who > > seeks to take on a fairly major chunk of development. What might have > > been considered reasonably acceptable development practice 4 or even 2 > > years ago simply won't fly now that we have a much larger user base > > and are under considerable pressure to produce a professional quality > > operating system which sets itself well apart from our "competition" > > in this arena. > > ok, then we need another place for 'bleeding edge' then. > SMP is anexample of development going on in -current, that > defies both your categories below. If we make -curent into > -stable, then where does the development go? Development needs > to go somewhere where people can test it out and take it for a > test-drive. I'm not sure that hackers is the right place for this (current would IMO be more correct) but I have to say that I feel Julian has a strong point, current _is_ the place for experimentation. It would be different if the code that he's bringing in was non-functional, but it isn't. The argument that it was a small part of the whole, and non-functional even in part, could only be made about the older DEVFS, not the SUID stuff, so that argument isn't valid. Julian hasn't been one to show up on the list and howl when someone accuses him of not being perfect ... I see reasoned discussion (so far). Asking someone to experiment ONLY on their own machines means, since their universe is much smaller, it really doesn't get the last stage of testing at all. Is what he's asking to remain something that is very fragmentary? No. Is it is going in without prior testing? No, not according to Julian's statements. Is it going to break something else in the tree? I don't _think_ so, although if someone brings something like that up, it would sure be a major strike against it. The only thing I've heard so far is someone saying they don't need the feature. Seeing as I don't know ANYBODY who uses all the features, well, that didn't hit me as a major complaint. How about we let it sit in the tree a month, and revisit it either at the end of the month, or at the first real, functional complaint? Julian gets his testing done for him (current users will surely complain if it breaks something) and in a month, if you still feel the same way, I think Julian could take it out, and would, if opinion still goes that way. I mean, what's the downside of this? Current isn't stable, that's one of it's major attractions to me. Let's not become too conservative ... ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971114185945.18833O-100000>