Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:10:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@highperformance.net> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Old Way Was Better Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0309071042420.76263-100000@s1.stradamotorsports.com> In-Reply-To: <200309070959.43759.dkelly@HiWAAY.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, David Kelly wrote: > On Sunday 07 September 2003 08:38 am, Bill Moran wrote: > > Dan Langille wrote: > > > > > > Those running -current need to be aware of the issues. As they have always done. > > This is immaterial. What we're talking about here is marketing. > > Marketing has nothing to do with reality. If it did, Microsoft's > > commercials wouldn't show people flying around, they'd show them > > forking out extra money for anti-virus software. I agree that the spinning off of a release from -current before it was ready was a marketing ploy more than anything. > > Next time, let's call it 6.0-BETA. This serves both purposes. A CD > > can be cut from the snapshot to increase the number of people > > testing, yet (even to PHBs) the term BETA means something that will > > cause them to fall back to (then) 5.X. > > Or call it FreeBSD-5.2-BETA-RELEASE. "Beta" is far better understood > than "current" (not that "current" part of the name currently.) No, no, no! Don't call it anything. Just make the next major release 6.0 when -current is truly ready to be a release. I propose no big fancy ideas about calling strawberries oranges or anything else. Just go back to the old way. Anyone who wants to track -current source can do so as they have always done in the past. Anyone who wants to install a snapshot can do so as they have done in the past. Making some grandiose statement about early adopters was only necessary because we started calling developmental code a release. The tactic of releasing 5.X before it's time was to encourage more testing. Rather than releasing development code and making big warnings, just _recruit_ more testers. That is what was needed in accordance with the early adopter's guide. This is the most direct path to the desired outcome. Those who are inclined to test will test. Those who are not inclined to test (me, until I got the OpenAFS bug) will not. All who are paying attention to the warnings will understand that the distinction between 5.X-RELEASE and 5.X-CURRENT is slight. But those who do not fully understand the FreeBSD development model will see that 5.X-RELEASE is lesser software and will hold FreeBSD in low esteem. And what do we do to decide when 5.X is good enough? Wait until 5.2, 5.3, or maybe 5.4? Do we ask all our buddies what they think the incorporation point should be? We wait for the "OK. It's really a release this time." Bah! The old way was better. Later, Jason C. Wells
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.44.0309071042420.76263-100000>