From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 16 10:05:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA10653 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:05:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from pinky.tcn.net (Pkrw.tcn.net [199.166.4.58]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA10629 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from krw@localhost) by pinky.tcn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA00486; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:08:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:07:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Kenneth R. Westerback" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: 2.1.7 (src 2.1 291) Xemacs package install non-functional Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 2.1.7 with delta's through 291 applied. Installing the package Xemacs-19.14 through either /stand/sysinstall or pkg_add does not produce a working Xemacs. Neither method seems to install packages upon which Xemacs is dependent. With the manual pkg_add I get the messages Warning: Can't open dependency file '/var/db/pkg/.../+REQUIRED_BY'! Dependency registration is incomplete. where ... is replaced by jpeg-6a, png-0.89c, xpm-3.4j in turn. Now I had already separately installed jpeg and xpm as packages from the CDROM and as a result I have /var/db/pkg/jpeg-6 and /var/db/pkg/xpm-3.4f. So there seems to be a version problem with the dependent packages? e.g. it looks for xpm-3.4j instead of xpm-3.4f and can't find it to install? Is this a problem with the Xemacs package or the 2.1.7 selection of package versions to include on the CD? I see that the correct (expected?) versions of these packages exist under packages-current on ftp.freebsd.org. Would these packages work under 2.1.7? I didn't check packages-2.2, but assuming they exist there as well would they work better than the -current ones? ---- Ken From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 16 10:05:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA10666 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from pinky.tcn.net (Pkrw.tcn.net [199.166.4.58]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA10637 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from krw@localhost) by pinky.tcn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA00371; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:15:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:15:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Kenneth R. Westerback" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: 2.1.7 (src-2.1 0291) /stand/sysinstall Won't Install Emacs Package Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I have applied the delta's to my 2.1.7 (CD base delta) up to 291, rebuilt the kernel, made world successfully, rebooted and tried again to install Emacs using /stand/sysinstall with absolutely no success. /stand/sysinstall gets to the screen displaying Information Dialog Located INDEX, now reading package data from it ... and that's all she wrote. I have waited for several minutes and seen no disk or CD activity at all. I finally ^C it and abort the installation. I see no sysinstall.debug file or error messages anywhere. (As an aside this ^C exit seems to leave the cdrom /dev busy so I can't mount /cdrom until I run /stand/sysinstall again and successfully add a package and exit gracefully.) HOWEVER, if I su to root and enter mount /cdrom pkg_add -v /cdrom/packages/editors/emacs-19.34b.tgz then a flurry of disk/cd activity follows and emacs is installed - and even works! I conclude that there is a flaw in /stand/sysinstall's handling of the emacs package. Hmmm. I just tried to pop out and /stand/sysinstall again to see the exact cdrom busy errors and, with the 2.1.7 CD still mounted on /cdrom I get the error User Confirmation Requested Warning: The CD currently in the drive is either not a FreeBSD CD or it is an older (pre 2.1.5) FreeBSD CD which does not have a version number on it. Do you wish to use this CD anyway? when I try to select media as CDROM. When I try to exit from /stand/sysinstall it tries several times to umount the cdrom from /dist so perhaps the above error message is a result of trying to mount the CD in two places? ---- Ken From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 16 10:05:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA10692 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:05:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from pinky.tcn.net (Pkrw.tcn.net [199.166.4.58]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA10649 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from krw@localhost) by pinky.tcn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA00411; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:35:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:35:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Kenneth R. Westerback" To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: 2.1.7 (src-2.1 291) ppp does not hang up! Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 2.1.7 with deltas up to 291 applied. ppp.conf: default: set device /dev/cuaa1 set speed 57600 disable lqr deny lqr set dial "ABORT BUSY ABORT NO\\sCARRIER TIMEOUT 5 \"\" ATE1Q0 OK-AT-OK \\dATDT\\T TIMEOUT 40 CONNECT" set redial 10 5 set debug phase Chat LCP tcn: set phone 3590900 set login "TIMEOUT 10 login:-\\r-login: **** word: ***" set timeout 120 set ifaddr 199.166.4.58 199.166.4.2 ppp.linkup: 199.166.4.58: add 0 0 HISADDR I run ppp -auto tcn from rc.local. The first time I need it, everything works fine. But when the idle time out expires ppp closes the link but does not hang the modem up. Thus subsequent redial attempts all fail since the modem is not in command mode and ignores all AT commands. ppp.log: 03-16 11:27:44 [172] Idle timer expired. 03-16 11:27:44 [172] LCP: LayerDown 03-16 11:27:44 [172] OsLinkdown: 199.166.4.2 03-16 11:27:44 [172] Phase: Terminate 03-16 11:27:44 [172] LCP: SendTerminateReq. 03-16 11:27:44 [172] LCP: state change Opend --> Closing 03-16 11:27:44 [172] LCP: Received Terminate Ack (2) state = Closing (4) 03-16 11:27:44 [172] LCP: state change Closing --> Closed 03-16 11:27:44 [172] LCP: LayerFinish 03-16 11:27:44 [172] Phase: Dead 03-16 11:29:08 [172] Expecting 03-16 11:29:08 [172] sending: ATE1Q0 03-16 11:29:08 [172] Expecting OK-AT-OK 03-16 11:29:08 [172] Wait for (5): OK --> OK 03-16 11:29:13 [172] can't get (5). 03-16 11:29:13 [172] sending: AT 03-16 11:29:13 [172] Wait for (5): OK --> OK 03-16 11:29:18 [172] can't get (5). I had this working great under a 3.0 snapshot. What's the trick to get ppp to hang up (i.e. toggle DTR I assume) when the timer expires? ---- Ken From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 16 14:06:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA22258 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:06:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22235; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:06:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA16084; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:06:11 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:06:11 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703162206.PAA16084@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: -current and -stable mailing lists Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Where do we send bug reports and comments on 2.2 now that 2.2 is released? In the past -stable was 2.1.*, and -current was anything/everything else. Inquiring minds would like to know? Should we state that 2.2 is now -stable material, since I suspect it's at least as stable as the 2.1.0 release. Nate From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 16 17:24:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA08903 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA08866; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id QAA23869 ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:26:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA14829; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:26:39 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703162206.PAA16084@rocky.mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:25:21 -0600 To: Nate Williams From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Where do we send bug reports and comments on 2.2 now that 2.2 is >released? In the past -stable was 2.1.*, and -current was >anything/everything else. > >Inquiring minds would like to know? Should we state that 2.2 is now >-stable material, since I suspect it's at least as stable as the 2.1.0 >release. IMHO, we need to get away from the bifurcated view of systems. 2.2 certainly has not yet proven itself enough to be a replacement for 2.1. And, at the same time, the head branch is a different development. If we MUST use the "current" tag to refer to any system, 2.2 is an ideal candidate. I realize that there is the hysterical (historical?) precedent that calls that "not yet ready for public view" 3.0 system "current" although "future" might be more appropriate. I suggest that the best solution is to drop the status designations and instead use the release family as the designation. 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc. That way it is clear which list is appropriate for a particular discussion. A small change in the majordomo setup could make the change easy for the users. The mailing list for "stable" and traffic to it could be rerouted to a new 2.1 list. The "current" list could be duplicated into both the 2.2 and 3.0 lists. As people learn to direct traffic to a more specific list, the old lists could be phased out. Until someone decides to change something in the mailing lists, I recommend that things remain as they were. "stable" is 2.1. "current" is anything more recent. However, "[2.2]" or [3.0]" in the subject would help sort things. From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Mar 16 17:28:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA09954 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA09933; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from bofh.noc.best.net (rone@bofh.noc.best.net [205.149.163.54]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id PAA23690 ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:49:33 -0800 (PST) Received: (from rone@localhost) by bofh.noc.best.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) id PAA07355; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:49:27 -0800 (PST) From: Ron Echeverri Message-Id: <199703162349.PAA07355@bofh.noc.best.net> Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: <199703162206.PAA16084@rocky.mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Mar 16, 97 03:06:11 pm" To: stable@FreeBSD.org Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:49:27 -0800 (PST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nate Williams writes: Where do we send bug reports and comments on 2.2 now that 2.2 is released? In the past -stable was 2.1.*, and -current was anything/everything else. Inquiring minds would like to know? Should we state that 2.2 is now -stable material, since I suspect it's at least as stable as the 2.1.0 release. Well, logically (well, my logic, for what that's worth), 3.0 should be under -current and 2.2 should be under -stable. 2.1-stable should be moved to -oldiebutgoodie or something like that. rone -- Ron Echeverri Best Internet Usenet Administration rone@best.net ############################################################################# INGREDIENT: Sodium benzoate (to preserve taste) From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 01:29:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA01716 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [207.155.21.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA01711; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:29:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA21658; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:29:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703170929.BAA21658@kachina.jetcafe.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kachina.jetcafe.org: Host [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Nate Williams , current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 01:29:04 -0800 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I suggest that the best solution is to drop the status designations and > instead use the release family as the designation. 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc. > That way it is clear which list is appropriate for a particular > discussion. On a related note...I'd like to add that it would be real helpful to those of us who dislike bothering the mountaintop source gurus if the mailing lists were archived in such a way as to be threaded and readable by date. That way we could peruse entire threads of discussion. The search engine (when it works) isn't cutting it. For an example, just try and find out how to upgrade from 2.1.7 to 2.2 by using CVSup and make world. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Better the demon that makes you improve than the angel who threatens. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 05:04:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA09221 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 05:04:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA09196; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 05:04:06 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id GAA18505; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 06:04:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 06:04:01 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703171304.GAA18505@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dave Hayes Cc: Nate Williams , current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: <199703170929.BAA21658@kachina.jetcafe.org> References: <199703170929.BAA21658@kachina.jetcafe.org> Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > On a related note...I'd like to add that it would be real helpful to > those of us who dislike bothering the mountaintop source gurus if the > mailing lists were archived in such a way as to be threaded and > readable by date. That way we could peruse entire threads of > discussion. I'm using VM (ViewMail) for my mail reader (an Emacs package) and it threads mail on the fly for me. It's quite nice, and highly recommended. Nate From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 05:43:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA10702 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 05:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from florence.pavilion.net (florence.pavilion.net [194.242.128.25]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA10684; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 05:43:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from joe@localhost) by florence.pavilion.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA22373; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:43:18 GMT Message-ID: <19970317134318.30595@pavilion.net> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:43:18 +0000 From: Josef Karthauser To: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists References: <199703170929.BAA21658@kachina.jetcafe.org> <199703171304.GAA18505@rocky.mt.sri.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.64 In-Reply-To: <199703171304.GAA18505@rocky.mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Mon, Mar 17, 1997 at 06:04:01AM -0700 Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 at 06:04:01AM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: > > On a related note...I'd like to add that it would be real helpful to > > those of us who dislike bothering the mountaintop source gurus if the > > mailing lists were archived in such a way as to be threaded and > > readable by date. That way we could peruse entire threads of > > discussion. > > I'm using VM (ViewMail) for my mail reader (an Emacs package) and it > threads mail on the fly for me. It's quite nice, and highly > recommended. > > > Nate So does mutt (http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~me/mutt/). Also does pgp. Joe -- Josef Karthauser Technical Manager Email: joe@pavilion.net Pavilion Internet plc. [Tel: +44 1273 607072 Fax: +44 1273 607073] From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 06:00:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA11531 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 06:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from morse.satech.net.au (root@morse.satech.net.au [203.1.91.4]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA11467; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 05:59:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from box.satech.net.au (root@box.satech.net.au [203.0.179.3]) by morse.satech.net.au (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA04281; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:42:07 +0930 Received: from matte.satech.net.au (matte.satech.net.au [203.1.91.219]) by box.satech.net.au (go-away/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA07871; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:42:20 +0930 Received: from matte.satech.net.au (localhost.satech.net.au [127.0.0.1]) by matte.satech.net.au (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA00508; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:28:45 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <332D470C.41C67EA6@satech.net.au> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:28:44 +1100 From: Matthew Thyer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Wackerbarth CC: Nate Williams , current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk This is ridiculous. FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! of course 2.2 will mature into stable and 2.1 will disappear over time, but 3.X is here to stay. Most development seems to be done on 3.X and then duplicated on 2.X if appropriate. Many people such as I run 3.0 systems and find them very stable as long as we read the freebsd-current mailing list and choose our times to "make world". I for example have not touched my make world since Feb 9th and have a system that is working very nicely at ctm-src-cur delta #2722 Naturally you'd be a bit silly to run 3.X in your uptime critical big $$$ business but then thats your decision. Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > >Where do we send bug reports and comments on 2.2 now that 2.2 is > >released? In the past -stable was 2.1.*, and -current was > >anything/everything else. > > > >Inquiring minds would like to know? Should we state that 2.2 is now > >-stable material, since I suspect it's at least as stable as the 2.1.0 > >release. > > IMHO, we need to get away from the bifurcated view of systems. > 2.2 certainly has not yet proven itself enough to be a replacement > for 2.1. And, at the same time, the head branch is a different > development. > > If we MUST use the "current" tag to refer to any system, 2.2 is an > ideal candidate. I realize that there is the hysterical (historical?) > precedent that calls that "not yet ready for public view" 3.0 system > "current" although "future" might be more appropriate. > > I suggest that the best solution is to drop the status designations and > instead use the release family as the designation. 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, etc. > That way it is clear which list is appropriate for a particular discussion. > > A small change in the majordomo setup could make the change easy for the > users. The mailing list for "stable" and traffic to it could be rerouted > to a new 2.1 list. The "current" list could be duplicated into both > the 2.2 and 3.0 lists. As people learn to direct traffic to a more specific > list, the old lists could be phased out. > > Until someone decides to change something in the mailing lists, I recommend > that things remain as they were. "stable" is 2.1. "current" is anything > more recent. However, "[2.2]" or [3.0]" in the subject would help sort > things. -- ======================================================================== @ Work: Matthew.Thyer@dsto.defence.gov.au @ Play: thyerm@satech.net.au ======================================================================== "If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time." E. P. Tryon from "Nature" Vol.246 Dec.14, 1973 From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 07:03:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA13894 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA13880; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:03:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA08093; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:03:21 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <332D470C.41C67EA6@satech.net.au> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:01:20 -0600 To: Matthew Thyer From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Matthew Thyer writes: >This is ridiculous. > >FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! It is equally correct to say -- 2.2 is the current release. 3.x is currently under development. It all boils down to the semantic interpretation. For those "in the know" we could call the head of the development tree "Rapsody" or "Bliss" or "Danger" or "Development" or "3.0" or any other code name. For those who do not "know", "current" is misleading because they typically want the "CURRENT RELEASE". This really has absolutely no relation to the buildability (or lack thereof) of the head development branch. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 07:23:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA14652 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:23:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from intercore.com (num1sun.intercore.com [199.181.243.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA14625; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:23:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (robin@localhost) by intercore.com (8.7.1/8.6.4) id KAA07552; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:13:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199703171513.KAA07552@intercore.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:13:13 -0500 From: robin@intercore.com (Robin Cutshaw) To: joe@pavilion.net (Josef Karthauser) Cc: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: <19970317134318.30595@pavilion.net>; from Josef Karthauser on Mar 17, 1997 13:43:18 +0000 References: <199703170929.BAA21658@kachina.jetcafe.org> <199703171304.GAA18505@rocky.mt.sri.com> <19970317134318.30595@pavilion.net> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.47 Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Josef Karthauser writes: > > So does mutt (http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~me/mutt/). Also does pgp. > Yep, I'm very happy with mutt. robin -- ---- Robin Cutshaw internet: robin@interlabs.com robin@intercore.com Internet Labs, Inc. BellNet: 404-817-9787 "Time is just one damn thing after another" -- PBS/Nova ---- -- From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 07:44:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA15825 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:44:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from X2296 (ppp1570.on.sympatico.ca [206.172.249.34]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA15819; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:44:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (tim@localhost) by X2296 (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00281; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: Tim Vanderhoek Reply-To: ac199@freenet.hamilton.on.ca To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Matthew Thyer , current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-OS: FreeBSD 2.2 X-Mailer: Pine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > Matthew Thyer writes: > > >This is ridiculous. > > > >FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! > > It is equally correct to say -- > > 2.2 is the current release. > 3.x is currently under development. > > It all boils down to the semantic interpretation. I'm not sure how much interpretation is necessary. There are three concurrent branches. -STABLE, -RELEASE, and -CURRENT. All three of these branches are, in fact, _current_. The problem is introduced when people confuse "current" with -CURRENT. You may attach whatever version numbering you wish. > For those "in the know" we could call the head of the > development tree "Rapsody" or "Bliss" or "Danger" or > "Development" or "3.0" or any other code name. We could then mount a large PR campaign, hype the product immensly, and never actual release it. :-) > For those who do not "know", "current" is misleading > because they typically want the "CURRENT RELEASE". The problem is when people relax their standards and say "current" when they mean "-CURRENT". -- tIM...HOEk Who's been messing with my anti-paranoi shot?! From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 08:01:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA16833 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 08:01:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA16824; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 08:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.1]) by bagpuss.visint.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA09612; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:01:13 GMT Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:01:13 +0000 (GMT) From: Stephen Roome cc: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Matthew Thyer writes: >This is ridiculous. > >FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! how about 2.1-past 2.2-present 3.0-future which actually explains it, but then again, so does just the number, but in order to actually make it all understandable for new folks: 2.1-previous 2.2-current (or simply 2.2-release) 3.0-experimental Someone could even put more information about each release in the readme.txt file at the top of ftp tree for each one. Steve Roome. -- FreeBSD: What other choice is there ? From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 09:36:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA22081 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA22073 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16611; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:36:00 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:34:55 -0600 To: Stephen Roome From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >Matthew Thyer writes: >>This is ridiculous. >> >>FreeBSD 3.X is CURRENT! > >how about > >2.1-past >2.2-present >3.0-future > >which actually explains it, but then again, so does just the number, >but in order to actually make it all understandable for new folks: > >2.1-previous >2.2-current >(or simply 2.2-release) Sorry. 2.2-RELEASE was yesterday. Today's 2.2 tree is (slightly) different :-) >3.0-experimental The "problem" is that some of the entrenched people who get the dictate what happens understand the distinctions but fail to the able to see the situation from the point-of-view of the "general public". They prefer THEIR interpretation because that is the interpretation to which THEY are accustomed. I fear that they are suffering from the all too common problem of being too close to something to see the broader perspective. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 09:55:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA22910 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:55:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from apollo.it.hq.nasa.gov (apollo.it.hq.nasa.gov [131.182.119.87]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA22888 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:55:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov (WireHead.it.hq.nasa.gov [131.182.119.88]) by apollo.it.hq.nasa.gov (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id MAA22361; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (cshenton@localhost) by wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA05751; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:55:03 GMT Message-Id: <199703171755.RAA05751@wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov> X-Authentication-Warning: wirehead.it.hq.nasa.gov: cshenton owned process doing -bs To: rkw@dataplex.net Cc: steve@visint.co.uk, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:34:55 -0600" References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.03 on Emacs 19.34.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:55:02 -0500 From: Chris Shenton Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:34:55 -0600 Richard Wackerbarth wrote: rkw> The "problem" is that some of the entrenched people who get the rkw> dictate what happens understand the distinctions but fail to the rkw> able to see the situation from the point-of-view of the "general rkw> public". They prefer THEIR interpretation because that is the rkw> interpretation to which THEY are accustomed. I fear that they are rkw> suffering from the all too common problem of being too close to rkw> something to see the broader perspective. That's always true. But there seems to be a more obvious problem in this naming gap: there are three reasonable release choices: 2.1.7 2.2 3.0 but only two names: -stable -current So of course there will be confusion. I kinda like the -past, -present, and -future myself :-) From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 10:27:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA25243 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:27:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA25233; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:27:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA07384; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:25:54 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703171825.LAA07384@rover.village.org> To: ac199@freenet.hamilton.on.ca Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: Richard Wackerbarth , Matthew Thyer , current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:43:38 EST." References: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:25:54 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message Tim Vanderhoek writes: : I'm not sure how much interpretation is necessary. There : are three concurrent branches. -STABLE, -RELEASE, and : -CURRENT. All three of these branches are, in fact, : _current_. The problem is introduced when people confuse : "current" with -CURRENT. The -stable branch isn't very current wrt bug fixes and the like. There have been long periods of time when it was woefully neglected, and it is time to admit that it is mature, and move on to 2.2. We'll be doing our users a disservice if we keep encouraging them to use old, moldy software. Warner From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 10:44:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA26218 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA26210 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA08789; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:28 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Stephen Roome , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:34:55 CST." Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:28 -0800 Message-ID: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > The "problem" is that some of the entrenched people who get the dictate > what happens understand the distinctions but fail to the able to see the > situation from the point-of-view of the "general public". They prefer THEIR This can be a valid criticism at times, but also be very clear on the fact that the "public" ALSO has a dozen different interpretations of many of our actions to choose from, and trying to figure out just which of many possible interpretations will cause the least confusion is no easy task. You, of course, would have a very Richard Wackarbarth way of looking at it, and calling "-current" this or "-stable" that might make perfect sense to you but be considered total lunacy by someone else who sees things a completely different way - I'm sure if we wait around long enough, someone who's *not* in the "entrenched set" will tell you just how and why you've got it all wrong. Any reasonably impartial student of human behavior could then perhaps step forward and make the pertinent observation that what's really wrong here is that the terms are simply too vague and people are tripping over them. What's "current" mean, anyway? Or "stable" for that matter? Heh, we don't *even* need to get into the billions of possible interpretations of that word. :) So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. It's not that hard to do in an evolutionary environment like this one, but now rather than continue to natter on for another dozen rounds about how terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see the "general public" answer these two simple questions: a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, current release track, bleeding edge development) which you feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. Jordan From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 11:02:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA27619 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:02:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA27605 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.69.236.50] (GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA21564; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:02:21 -0600 (CST) Date: 17 Mar 97 13:04:03 -0600 Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists From: "Richard Wackerbarth" To: "Warner Losh" Cc: stable@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0b1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 12:25 PM, Warner Losh wrote: >In message Tim Vanderhoek >writes: >: I'm not sure how much interpretation is necessary. There >: are three concurrent branches. -STABLE, -RELEASE, and >: -CURRENT. All three of these branches are, in fact, >: _current_. The problem is introduced when people confuse >: "current" with -CURRENT. > >The -stable branch isn't very current wrt bug fixes and the like. >There have been long periods of time when it was woefully neglected, It might no be in that condition if "the powers" had not been so hell-bent on discarding it back at 2.1.5. >and it is time to admit that it is mature, and move on to 2.2. We'll >be doing our users a disservice if we keep encouraging them to use >old, moldy software. In a month or so, I will totally agree. However, I do not feel that I can, in good faith, recommend something which has received only minimal exposure testing for those who need stability. It is often better to live with the know problems than it is to venture into the unknown. For the "hobby" user, I definitely agree that we should encourage them to try 2.2. It is ready for the larger audience which can provide the validation needed for it to progress through the product life cycle. IMHO, many of the people active in the development are too ready to discard something well established for the "latest thing", even though it is has not yet been adequately tested and, in many cases, provides a particular user with no bottom line benefit. Compare FreeBSD to a new automobile. How many test phases do you think it must successfully pass before it ever gets to the showroom floor? From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 11:51:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA00494 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:51:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from pegasus.com (pegasus.com [140.174.243.13]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00488 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by pegasus.com (8.6.8/PEGASUS-2.2) id JAA01508; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:50:46 -1001 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:50:46 -1001 From: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) Message-Id: <199703171951.JAA01508@pegasus.com> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" "Re: -current and -stable mailing lists" (Mar 17, 10:44am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk } } a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change } exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? } Maybe. There are good descriptions of the purposes of the different branches within the distributions, on the web pages, and elsewhere. Just a reminder ... Richard From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 12:00:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA01374 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:00:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01367 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA25596; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:00:11 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:34:55 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:58:18 -0600 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> The "problem" is that some of the entrenched people who get the dictate >> what happens understand the distinctions but fail to the able to see the >> situation from the point-of-view of the "general public". They prefer THEIR > >This can be a valid criticism at times, but also be very clear on the >fact that the "public" ALSO has a dozen different interpretations of >many of our actions to choose from, and trying to figure out just >which of many possible interpretations will cause the least confusion >is no easy task. Here I do not disagree. That is why I recommend that we try to stay away from short labels which carry various semantic interpretations. Given a paragragh rather than simply 8 characters makes it much to clearly communicate. >So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. It's not that >hard to do in an evolutionary environment like this one, Hindsight is always better :-) > but now >rather than continue to natter on for another dozen rounds about how >terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see >the "general public" answer these two simple questions: > > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? > > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. 1) Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that you cannot see a problem is not a valid solution. As others have noted, we, at the present time, have only two names for three "animals." We clearly need to change either 2.2 or 3.0 away from "current". 2) Moving 2.2 onto "stable" is, in itself, confusing. (Where does 2.1 go? Contrary to the desires of some, it isn't quite dead yet.) 3) I would NOT use "current" to designate the head of the deveplopment branch. As noted, it is too ambiguous. 4) I would carry discussion about each generation of the system under its unique, permanent name. From the time that the development tree is branched until there is ABSOLUTELY no support for it, the branch would be known by its identifier, eg 2.2. 5) As each system progresses through its life cycle, various aliases might be used to designate the its level of progress. However, I would consider them just aliases and have them redirect to the underlying numeric designation. This strategy avoids the abrupt "pull out the rug" type of change that occurs if "X" (stable?) changes from 2.1 to 2.2. I can see some argument for failing to assign a number to the head of the development branch because it does not really change when a new branch is created. However, any name chosen for that should convey the extreme cutting edge of development nature of this "animal". IMHO, the people who should be dealing with this "branch" have a much better understanding of the total picture and can reasonably be expected to deal with any name, whether it has "meaning" or is simply a "codeword". 6) I would propose that, as a transition, "current" can alias to both 2.2 and 3.0. As users become accustomed to the new name, it can be phased out. The nice thing about my proposed solution is that Majordomo can take care of the immediate change and nobody encounters an abrupt disruption. Duplicate the "current" mailing list into both 2.2 and 3.0. Alias "current" to forward its message to both lists. Publish the change and encourage the use of the more restrictive lists. After some time, phase out the alias. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 12:41:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03404 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03397 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:41:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA20680; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:41:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:41:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703172041.NAA20680@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Richard Wackerbarth , Stephen Roome , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> References: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. -stable (Released versions of FreeBSD, since any release has some measure of stability) -release (The 'next' release of FreeBSD) -devel (What was once -current, now renamed to devel which reflect the code on the 'HEAD' branch). There might be some confusion on when to use -stable vs. -release, but most questions would be appropriate for either, since most people run the most recent release, so the question would be answered 'fixed in -release'. The big issue in my mind is how to differentiate 'released' vs. 'release in progress'. Nate From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 12:46:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03617 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:46:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.frihet.com (root@frihet.bayarea.net [205.219.92.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03612 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.frihet.com (tweten@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns.frihet.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA01873; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0beta 12/23/96 Reply-To: "David E. Tweten" To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Richard Wackerbarth , Stephen Roome , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 -0800 From: "David E. Tweten" Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Weighing in with my $0.02, ... jkh@time.cdrom.com said: >... now rather than continue to natter on for another dozen rounds about >how terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to >see the "general public" answer these two simple questions: > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? Since I still haven't figured out what mailing list to use for my 2.2 questions and observations, I'd say no. A higher level of confusion, though possible, would be difficult to achieve. :-) > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. My suggestions would be "stable," "current," and "experimental." As I understand things, nothing short of a CERT advisory should cause a future change to the 2.1 line. That sounds stable to me. The 2.2 line is, and will continue to be the source of "current" releases for some time. The 3.0 line is unlikely to have any releases until it's time to shift 2.1 into oblivion, shift 2.2 into stable, and issue the first 3.0 release in the line. It also makes sense for there to be three e-mail lists, maybe (possibly renamed) versions of "stable," "current," and "hackers?" By the way, today, which e-mail lists should I use for what? -- David E. Tweten | 2047-bit PGP fingerprint: | tweten@frihet.com 12141 Atrium Drive | E9 59 E7 5C 6B 88 B8 90 | tweten@and.com Saratoga, CA 95070-3162 | 65 30 2A A4 A0 BC 49 AE | (408) 446-4131 Those who make good products sell products; those who don't, sell solutions. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 13:10:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA04742 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:10:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA04733 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:10:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.69.236.50] (GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA29788; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:10:23 -0600 (CST) Date: 17 Mar 97 15:12:06 -0600 Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists From: "Richard Wackerbarth" To: "Nate Williams" Cc: stable@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0b1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 2:41 PM, Nate Williams wrote: >> b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got >> carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose >> to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, >> current release track, bleeding edge development) which you >> feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the >> layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. > >-stable (Released versions of FreeBSD, since any release has some > measure of stability) >-release (The 'next' release of FreeBSD) >-devel (What was once -current, now renamed to devel which reflect the > code on the 'HEAD' branch). > Perhaps "next" is a good label. In fact, why not use that name for an entire OS? :-) >There might be some confusion on when to use -stable vs. -release, but >most questions would be appropriate for either, since most people run >the most recent release, so the question would be answered 'fixed in >-release'. > >The big issue in my mind is how to differentiate 'released' vs. 'release >in progress'. There is always some ambiguity with any set of labels about status. "Test(ing)" or "Trial" might be used to designate the "reasonably complete but still pre-release" state (some use "alpha", "beta", etc to designate how far along the process the item has progressed.We don't want anything to that fine granularity) In any case, we have a certain ambiguity between 2.2.0-RELEASED and 2.2.1-INPROGRESS. Assuming that the head branch is no longer available for 2.2 improvement, there is still the problem that 2.2-TODAY may be either better or worse than 2.2.0-RELEASE. If some major bug had been fixed, it would likely be better --- unless someone just committed some untested code :-( From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 13:28:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA05501 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05492 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.69.236.50] (GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00653; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:27:50 -0600 (CST) Date: 17 Mar 97 15:29:32 -0600 Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists From: "Richard Wackerbarth" To: "David E. Tweten" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0b1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 2:45 PM, David E. Tweten wrote: >Weighing in with my $0.02, ... >My suggestions would be "stable," "current," and "experimental." As I >understand things, nothing short of a CERT advisory should cause a future >change to the 2.1 line. That sounds stable to me. The 2.2 line is, and will >continue to be the source of "current" releases for some time. The 3.0 line >is unlikely to have any releases until it's time to shift 2.1 into oblivion, >shift 2.2 into stable, and issue the first 3.0 release in the line. It also >makes sense for there to be three e-mail lists, maybe (possibly renamed) >versions of "stable," "current," and "hackers?" I agree that those are good names for today. However, what was really appropriate a month ago? (The same cycle repeats every X months) At that time, 2.1 was "stable" and although reluctantly and slowly, still being supported. 2.2 was defined and in testing, but not yet released. At the same time, work for 3.0 had already begun on features which, it had already been decided, would not be in the 2.2 releases. This is an appropriate mix of ongoing development. Any naming convention should handle it as well as todays state where 2.2 is "just released, but not fully shaken out". From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 13:30:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA05641 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [207.155.21.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA05636 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA29315; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:29:39 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703172129.NAA29315@kachina.jetcafe.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kachina.jetcafe.org: Host [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Richard Wackerbarth , Stephen Roome , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:28:52 -0800 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Any reasonably impartial student of human behavior could then perhaps > step forward and make the pertinent observation that what's really > wrong here is that the terms are simply too vague and people are > tripping over them. You're not abstracting far enough. The real "wrong" here is best observed (IMO) from the standpoint of someone trying to get "support" from the email archives or by mailing to a list. > terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see > the "general public" answer these two simple questions: > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? Not for me. > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? "Stable", "current", and "future". > Explain your rationale for each choice. When all three names are viewed as a set, they appear to imply a common abstraction of your development tracks. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A king who feared wasps once decreed that they would be abolished. As it happened, they did him no harm. But he was eventually stung to death by scorpions. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 13:35:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA06041 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [207.155.21.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA06035; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:35:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([127.0.0.1]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA29339; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:33:52 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703172133.NAA29339@kachina.jetcafe.org> X-Authentication-Warning: kachina.jetcafe.org: Host [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Nate Williams Cc: current@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:33:51 -0800 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Nate Williams writes: > Dave Hayes writes: > > On a related note...I'd like to add that it would be real helpful to > > those of us who dislike bothering the mountaintop source gurus if the > > mailing lists were archived in such a way as to be threaded and > > readable by date. That way we could peruse entire threads of > > discussion. > I'm using VM (ViewMail) for my mail reader (an Emacs package) and it > threads mail on the fly for me. It's quite nice, and highly > recommended. Sorry, I use MH mode in emacs. ;-) Nor does this help those who hate emacs. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet "If a man does keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer." - Henry David Thoreau From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 14:17:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA08185 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.anasazi.com (mailhost.anasazi.com [138.113.128.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA08179 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from chad.anasazi.com by mailhost.anasazi.com (5.65/3.7) id AA05025; Mon, 17 Mar 97 15:16:23 -0700 Received: by chad.anasazi.com (5.65/3.7) id AA21511; Mon, 17 Mar 97 15:16:20 -0700 From: chad@anasazi.com (Chad R. Larson) Message-Id: <9703172216.AA21511@chad.anasazi.com> Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:16:18 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Mar 17, 97 10:44:28 am Reply-To: chad@anasazi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. It's not that > hard to do in an evolutionary environment like this one, but now > rather than continue to natter on for another dozen rounds about how > terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see > the "general public" answer these two simple questions: > > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? > > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. As several people have now noted, the biggest confusion is the difference in the number of names (2) and reasonable trees (3). I'd vote that all the trees still available for download and/or manipulation be identified by their number. That is, I could easily see 2.1.7, 2.2.0, 2.2.1 and 3.0 all SUPable and FTPable. Let's leave them that way. Then, to help deconfuse the newbies and occasional visitors, we can add descriptive names to some of those trees. There is a bit of a discussion in the Handbook about the current names. I think symbolic links on the servers and a paragraph or three in the handbook would suffice to resolve the purpose of the trees, and the symbolic links would make it clear that they are aliases for the "true" names and will probably be repointed in the future.. And, finally, for those names I'd vote: 2.1.7 - frozen 2.2.x - released 3.0.x - experimental -crl -- Chad R. Larson (CRL22) Brother, can you paradigm? 602-870-3330 chad@anasazi.com chad@anasaz.UUCP chad@dcfinc.com Anasazi, Inc. - 7500 North Dreamy Draw Drive, Suite 120, Phoenix, Az 85020 From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 16:14:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA14664 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:14:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA14657 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:14:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA09122; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:13:22 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703180013.RAA09122@rover.village.org> To: "David E. Tweten" Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Richard Wackerbarth , Stephen Roome , stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> References: <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:13:21 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> "David E. Tweten" writes: : My suggestions would be "stable," "current," and "experimental." As I : understand things, nothing short of a CERT advisory should cause a future : change to the 2.1 line. That sounds stable to me. The 2.2 line is, and will : continue to be the source of "current" releases for some time. The 3.0 line : is unlikely to have any releases until it's time to shift 2.1 into oblivion, : shift 2.2 into stable, and issue the first 3.0 release in the line. It also : makes sense for there to be three e-mail lists, maybe (possibly renamed) : versions of "stable," "current," and "hackers?" Ummm, How about stagnant, stable and current? -stable was originally chosen as the name because things were getting just too unstable in -current and it was supposed to represent a reliable, safe version to run. Now that 2.2 is out, it should shortly replace the -2.1.x based -stable with a new 2.2 based -stable. -stable doesn't mean unchanging, just "ready for prime time." 2.1.x should be allowed to die quietly once 2.2 has proven its worth. There is nothing magical about the 2.1.x source base, and it has become quite musty over the last two years that 2.2 has been under development. The process of vetting 2.2 will likely take a month or so due to the extensive testing that happened to the 2.2 release before it was released. Warner From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 16:51:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA18193 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:51:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA18162 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:51:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA07274; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:49:58 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703180013.RAA09122@rover.village.org> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 -0600 To: Warner Losh From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: "David E. Tweten" , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Stephen Roome , stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 6:13 PM -0600 3/17/97, Warner Losh wrote: >In message <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> "David E. Tweten" writes: >: My suggestions would be "stable," "current," and "experimental." As I >: understand things, nothing short of a CERT advisory should cause a future >: change to the 2.1 line. That sounds stable to me. The 2.2 line is, and >will >: continue to be the source of "current" releases for some time. The 3.0 >line >: is unlikely to have any releases until it's time to shift 2.1 into >oblivion, >: shift 2.2 into stable, and issue the first 3.0 release in the line. It >also >: makes sense for there to be three e-mail lists, maybe (possibly renamed) >: versions of "stable," "current," and "hackers?" > >Ummm, How about stagnant, stable and current? > >-stable was originally chosen as the name because things were getting >just too unstable in -current and it was supposed to represent a >reliable, safe version to run. Now that 2.2 is out, it should shortly >replace the -2.1.x based -stable with a new 2.2 based -stable. >-stable doesn't mean unchanging, just "ready for prime time." > >2.1.x should be allowed to die quietly once 2.2 has proven its worth. >There is nothing magical about the 2.1.x source base, and it has >become quite musty over the last two years that 2.2 has been under >development. The process of vetting 2.2 will likely take a month or >so due to the extensive testing that happened to the 2.2 release >before it was released. No disagreement here. But I think that most people now realize that there will be three "active" versions rather than just the two for which we have names. As soon as we decide that 3.0 needs to be broken out because someone needs to start the relatively long process involved in the next leap forward with features that will not be part of 3.0, we will again be in the same position. 2.2.x will be the "stable" system and 3.0 will still need testing and polishing. However, the head branch will have moved on to 4.0 and we will be right back where we are now. It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality product that many of us want it to be. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 17:00:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA19213 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA19201 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA09340; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:59:38 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703180059.RAA09340@rover.village.org> To: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: "David E. Tweten" , "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Stephen Roome , stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:59:37 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message Richard Wackerbarth writes: : It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it : is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is : a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" : product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is : discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will : continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality : product that many of us want it to be. If the 2.2 release process was shorter, then I might agree with you. However, the release has been extensively tested and tuned over the last several months. It seems to be more stable than the 2.1.x system that I had for a while. If anything, that shows a high level of commitment to quality. Personally, I like the idea of having -frozen to describe the 2.1.x tree and bring 2.2.x into the -stable role with 3.0 still being called -current. Warner From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 17:30:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA21596 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:30:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from tok.qiv.com ([204.214.141.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA21587 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:30:49 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by tok.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with UUCP id TAA19920 for stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:30:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (jdn@localhost) by acp.qiv.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA00601 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:32:28 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: acp.qiv.com: jdn owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:32:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Jay D. Nelson" To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Sorry to add to the natter, but the naming scheme hasn't caused me any confusion at all. Unless you truly hope to get Joe 95 to consider FreeBSD (which strikes me like spitting into a 40 knot gale) I dont really care what you call the branches -- as long as something tells me what they are for. (I thought the handbook explained it quite well!) The one thing I would caution -- be sure that stable means stable. One of the reasons I am using FreeBSD is because I need to get other work done. I don't enjoy the 'patch of the day' cycle of development, nor can I afford it. The way things are has worked well for me. If 2.2 is _truly_ stable, then call it stable and move 2.1 to `legacy' or something. BTW -- I think abandoning 2.1 would be a mistake. Thanks for hearing me out. -- Jay [everything else snipped] From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 18:11:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA23969 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA23964 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:11:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA14626; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:10:53 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703180059.RAA09340@rover.village.org> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:11:57 -0600 To: Warner Losh From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >In message Richard Wackerbarth writes: >: It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it >: is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is >: a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" >: product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is >: discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will >: continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality >: product that many of us want it to be. > >If the 2.2 release process was shorter, then I might agree with you. >However, the release has been extensively tested and tuned over the >last several months. It seems to be more stable than the 2.1.x system >that I had for a while. If anything, that shows a high level of >commitment to quality. > >Personally, I like the idea of having -frozen to describe the 2.1.x >tree and bring 2.2.x into the -stable role with 3.0 still being called >-current. 1) Give me a break. 2.1 is NOT "frozen", small updates continue, as they should, to dribble in. I don't think anyone expects anything major to happen. However, let me remind you that the 2.1.7 situation would not have been as much of an issue if we had not been fighting the "frozen" attitude ever since 2.1.5 was released. 2) I agree that 2.2 should not require much public testing time before it reaches the confidence level that will relegate 2.1 to the morgue. However, the CD isn't even in production. Many of the people who will really hit it hard don't even have a copy yet. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 18:45:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA25403 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:45:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA25393 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA09842; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:45:43 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703180245.TAA09842@rover.village.org> To: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:11:57 CST." References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:45:42 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message Richard Wackerbarth writes: : 1) Give me a break. 2.1 is NOT "frozen", small updates continue, as they : should, : to dribble in. I don't think anyone expects anything major to happen. : However, let me remind you that the 2.1.7 situation would not have been : as much of an issue if we had not been fighting the "frozen" attitude ever : since 2.1.5 was released. I think we have different definitions of frozen :-). The main reason that 2.1.x must die now that 2.2 has been released is that no one seems to be carefully checking the changes to it, nor do people even bother to backport anything except critical security fixes any more. It is draining effort that should be placed into 2.2 and making -current better. I understand your frustration with the situation. The FreeBSD project bit off more than it could chew on the whole 2.1.x branch. It is very hard to keep two branches around for so long and have a good, high quality product at the end of that game. The 2.1.x branch has become very difficult to work this due to its large divergence from the 2.2 branch. If there was anybody that was actively maintaining it and acting as release engineer for that branch, it would be different. There isn't. No one came forward to dedicate the huge amount of time it would have taken, so 2.1.x is in disarray. Given that FreeBSD is a volunteer orgainization, there needs to be a dedication of some person or persons to make something happen over the long haul. If competent people are not available to do this, then your only other recourse is to pay someone to keep the branch alive. If there is sufficient interest in doing this, I know several competent people that would be more than happy to do what it takes to keep 2.1.x alive a little while longer. However, these people, myself included, are all consultants and need to be paid for the work that is done. With all due respect to those that desire 2.1.x to continue, it likely will not continue unless someone is paid to do it. History has shown that no one is motived enough out of enlightened self interest to keep it up to date, so that's the next step. In fact, several months ago I made a public offer to commit any bug fixes that people specifically sent to me into the 2.1.x tree. So far no body has taken me up on my offer. I'm not sure why that is, but it doesn't seem to indicate a high level of desire in that user community to see it continue to be improved. : 2) I agree that 2.2 should not require much public testing time before : it reaches the confidence level that will relegate 2.1 to the morgue. : However, the CD isn't even in production. Many of the people who will really : hit it hard don't even have a copy yet. There will be a transition period as 2.2 penetrates the market. Once that process is complete, barring any really horrible 2.2 bugs, 2.2 will be the new gold standard that people will install, not 2.1.7R + patches. I'm sorry if you have trouble with the 2.1.x branch is dead attitude. I tried to help that and found I was fighting a losing battle. Warner From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 19:41:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA28384 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:41:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28369 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA19786; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:41:01 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703180245.TAA09842@rover.village.org> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:11:57 CST." Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 CST." Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:36:41 -0600 To: Warner Losh From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 8:45 PM -0600 3/17/97, Warner Losh wrote: >I'm sorry if you have trouble with the 2.1.x branch is dead attitude. >I tried to help that and found I was fighting a losing battle. Yes, I have trouble with the attitude because it indicates that there is no dedication to the idea that we will ALWAYS try to have a quality product. It seems that the desire is to replace something before anyone has demonstrated that there is a better candidate. Perhaps it is more the prejudicial attitude against the old established system than the reality of the action. I don't think anyone really expects much more to be done to 2.1. However, there is a lot of attitudinal difference in "will die soon" (once 2.2 has had a chance to prove itself) and "is already dead" (even though 2.2 had not yet reached a feature freeze, much less RELEASE and subsequent testing). Remember that people who want stable systems probably want them that way because they are currently doing useful work on them. They don't care if you are about to produce some great improvement. If the current system meets their needs, all they want is the assurance that "you" will try to repair any major holes. However, this "its already dead" demeanor does not instill such confidence. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 20:24:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA00728 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA00707 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za (zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za [146.64.24.58]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id UAA26850 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:22:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jhay@localhost) by zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA28685; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:22:36 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay Message-Id: <199703180422.GAA28685@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: from Richard Wackerbarth at "Mar 17, 97 06:51:01 pm" To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:22:36 +0200 (SAT) Cc: stable@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it > is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is > a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" > product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is > discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will > continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality > product that many of us want it to be. > I think you want to spread us too thin, if you want us to work on three trees. Even big companies like Microsoft don't do it that way, or have you seen any Win 3.11 fixes lately.... or even the last year for that matter? I haven't even seen a "commercial" user comming forward and say that 2.1.x is important for them and they want to help keep it up to date. So maybe it isn't really important for them, or maybe they are also just going to upgrade to 2.2 soon? We are using it commercially and I'm allready busy convincing the powers that be that we have to upgrade because I don't think it is worth it to keep going on with 2.1.x. It is just getting too hard to retrofit things from 2.2 and -current. Just my R0.02. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@mikom.csir.co.za From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 20:28:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA00876 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:28:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA00871 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:28:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id UAA03167; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:26:39 -0800 (PST) To: Richard Wackerbarth cc: Warner Losh , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:36:41 CST." Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:26:39 -0800 Message-ID: <3162.858659199@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Yes, I have trouble with the attitude because it indicates that there > is no dedication to the idea that we will ALWAYS try to have a > quality product. It seems that the desire is to replace something > before anyone has demonstrated that there is a better candidate. Uh.. And I think that Richard has also handily missed the real message here. This is not an "attitude" problem, as you seem to love to characterize it, this is an apathy problem. Warner volunteered to play reviewer/committer for -stable months ago, I remember his announcement, and his offer drew a big goose egg zero in response. Look, I have a hard time understanding how you could be so obtuse about this: These are volunteer developers, they will work on the kinds of things that they like to work on, and for many that's not the -stable branch. Some of us developers, myself included, took it upon ourselves to maintain the -stable branch for a very long time (and I'm *still* not done supporting it - a 2.1.7.1 release currently awaiting a merge of Justin's SCSI changes, once David tests them) in response to what we felt to be a customer need. At some point, however, everyone needs to move on and begin looking again to more interesting and rewarding pursuits (in my case, the 2.2 branch. In others', 3.0) lest all enjoyment go out of things. Working on an old code base just isn't a lot of fun, you understand? More disturbing, however, are the implications of Warner's failed attempt to run interferance for changes in a post-2.1.7 world. I think in a project like this one, it's more than fair to say that at some point the "dead branches" need to have user support in order to survive or see key developers more and more involved in supporting past development rather than future improvements (this has happened to commercial efforts, and it has always killed them). When Warner called to FreeBSD's -stable user base for proposed changes to keep the 2.1.x branch alive, however, who showed up? Since you seem to feel so passionately about this, why not do something actually useful about it (hint: this kvetching is not useful, it merely fills my inbox with more bytes) and start pulling bug fixes out of 2.2/3.0 and sending them to Warner? Do it loudly and publically in -stable, enjoining others to assist you in your crusade to bring fresh life to 2.1.x. Start a movement. Plant a tree. Buy municipal bonds. Just do something more constructive, please, if it's actual results in -stable that you're looking for! Thanks! Jordan From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 21:20:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA03129 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:20:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA03124 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA00693; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:20:32 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703180520.WAA00693@rover.village.org> To: John Hay Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth), stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 18 Mar 1997 06:22:36 +0200." <199703180422.GAA28685@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> References: <199703180422.GAA28685@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:20:31 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199703180422.GAA28685@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> John Hay writes: : I haven't even seen a "commercial" user comming forward and say that : 2.1.x is important for them and they want to help keep it up to date. Time for another public offer: If people send me patches, I'll integrate them. So far I've received two that were integrated (and one of those was against -current, but with the request to try to backport it to 2.1.x please). If people want to pay me to give the level of support that Richard wants to the 2.1.x branch, then contact me privately and I'll give you a good rate.[*] My appologies for such a blantly commercial message, but at this point in the curve it is put up or shut up. Send me patches, or make it worth my while to go looking for good patches. Otherwise, be grateful and satisified with what people are volunteering to do out of the goodness of their hearts. Warner [*] I'm sure there are other FreeBSD contributors with consulting businesses that might also be available, should an offer be made. From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 21:35:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA04041 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from ohio.river.org (ohio.river.org [199.4.65.219]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04036 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:35:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dhawk@localhost) by ohio.river.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA04418 for stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:34:28 -0800 (PST) From: David Hawkins Message-Id: <199703180534.VAA04418@ohio.river.org> Subject: root & /etc/nologin To: stable@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:34:27 -0800 (PST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Question: if there's an /etc/nologin in place can root still login at the console? I want to start a 'make world' from home and then drive to where the computer is (90 minutes away if I'm lucky) and login at the console to build the kernel. The man page (login) just says logins are disabled, but I was wondering if root/console was a special case. System: FreeBSD 2.1.0 -> 2.1.7 Thanks. later, david -- David Hawkins -- dhawk@river.org Do you know what a pessimist is? A person who thinks everybody as nasty as himself, and hates them for it. -- George Bernard Shaw From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Mar 17 21:54:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA04981 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:54:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA04956 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id VAA27222 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:51:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA01226; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:51:06 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703180551.WAA01226@rover.village.org> To: David Hawkins Subject: Re: root & /etc/nologin Cc: stable@freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:34:27 PST." <199703180534.VAA04418@ohio.river.org> References: <199703180534.VAA04418@ohio.river.org> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:51:05 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199703180534.VAA04418@ohio.river.org> David Hawkins writes: : The man page (login) just says logins are disabled, but I was : wondering if root/console was a special case. My FreeBSD sources are offline while I'm updating NetBSD, but my Dec 5 NetBSD sources say: ... if (pwd = getpwnam(username)) salt = pwd->pw_passwd; else salt = "xx"; /* * if we have a valid account name, and it doesn't have a * password, or the -f option was specified and the caller * is root or the caller isn't changing their uid, don't * authenticate. */ if (pwd) { if (pwd->pw_uid == 0) rootlogin = 1; ... /* if user not super-user, check for disabled logins */ if (!rootlogin) checknologin(); which looks like root can always login, even in the face of the /etc/nologin file. I strongly suspect FreeBSD wouldn't be any different in this area. Warner From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 02:33:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA19838 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:33:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.217.135]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA19833 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:33:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id FAA21583; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:32:44 -0500 Date: 18 Mar 97 05:31:43 EST From: Berend de Boer <100120.3121@CompuServe.COM> To: "'FreeBSD stable'" , "'\"Jordan K. Hubbard\"'" Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <970318103143_100120.3121_EHU93-2@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk You wrote: > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? No. Anyone knowning exactly what stable and current means probably read this mailing list or other freebsd mailinglists and can be easily notified of the name change. The fact is that the current naming scheme is confusing for someone who knows nothing about FreeBSD. > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. > The names should express the group they target, so I propose: 1. Mature: expresses that this track contains highly matured code. 2. Release: expresses that this is the release most people, new to FreeBSD, want. Someone who chooses FreeBSD to run some important business on will try this release, read some docs and then decides if he wants the release or mature track. 3. Experimental: this name shows that the things in this track are new, largely untested, etc. You want this only if you want to try out really new things. Groetjes, Berend. From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 08:30:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA03700 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA03661 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from tarkin.smlab.com (tarkin.smlab.com [208.132.36.129]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id GAA29498 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from r2d2.smlab.com (mike@r2d2.smlab.com [192.168.2.7]) by tarkin.smlab.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA13323 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:33:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (mike@localhost) by r2d2.smlab.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id JAA01054 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:34:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:34:42 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Nowlin To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Ummm, How about stagnant, stable and current? 2.1-USE_ME 2.2-MAYBE_USE_ME 3.0-YOU_GOTTA_BE_NUTS_IF_YOU_TRUST_THIS_ONE --Mike From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 08:36:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA04980 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:36:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA04949 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:36:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id FAA29172 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jkh@localhost) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) id FAA16165; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:34:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:34:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703181334.FAA16165@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: Warner Losh , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: References: <3162.858659199@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Richard Wackerbarth writes: > See! Despite the load protestrations to the contrary, 2.1 IS NOT DEAD. And I never said it was. Why are you belaboring the obvious? If I thought 2.1 was truly dead, would I and others be putting in the work to release 2.1.6/2.1.7/2.1.7.1/??? - this would seem to be a wholly redundant and unnecessary crusade you're on here. > I think that a lot of the effect that you are seeing is a direct result > of all the insistance that 2.1.5 was the end of the 2.1 branch. I entirely disagree. I think it's apathy, and I think you're just as guilty of it as everyone else here - I haven't seen any -stable patches from you, anyway. > By the repeated loud crys "2.1 is dead", it becomes a self fulfilling > claim. Why should I go to the effort to prepare something when I have > to sent it to someone you is proclaiming that what I would be doing > is a futile effort? Only you seem to think this, Richard, and claiming that you'd have worked on this if only we hadn't soured the milk is pure hogwash. You haven't put your money where your mouth is where 2.1 is concerned and now you're trying to put the blame elsewhere. I don't buy it for a second. > IMHO, one thing that is very discouraging to contributions is the > "ports" situation. I feel that the strong effort toward the 3.0 > branch, even before 2.2 was released, discourages contributions > to that major part of the system. You don't even have a workable > mechanism to support ports for 2.2, much less 2.1. As a result, Talk to Satoshi. Help him evolve some way of supporting multiple branches of development in a way that doesn't overload his ports developers and I'm sure he'll be reasonable. Jordan From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 08:42:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA06139 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06102 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id EAA28767 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:34:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA25571; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:31:54 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703180422.GAA28685@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> References: from Richard Wackerbarth at "Mar 17, 97 06:51:01 pm" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 06:30:25 -0600 To: John Hay From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 10:22 PM -0600 3/17/97, John Hay wrote: >> >> It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it >> is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is >> a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" >> product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is >> discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will >> continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality >> product that many of us want it to be. >> > >I think you want to spread us too thin, if you want us to work on three >trees. Even big companies like Microsoft don't do it that way, or have >you seen any Win 3.11 fixes lately.... or even the last year for that >matter? Here I disagree. What you are seeing is the public view of Microsoft. I assure you that the R&D groups in Microsoft ARE working on additional systems. The difference with FreeBSD is that the R&D department is as visable as the production department. >I'm already busy convincing the powers that be that we have to upgrade >because I don't think it is worth it to keep going on with 2.1.x. It is >just getting too hard to retrofit things from 2.2 and -current. I agree. However, I believe that this is "effect" rather than "cause". If the FreeBSD group will accept the attitude that they NEED three branches, it will become easier to support them. After all, there has been a quantum leap from one branch to two. From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 08:43:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA06334 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:43:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA06307 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from fty-ss20.cisco.com (fty-ss20.cisco.com [171.69.162.81]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with ESMTP id EAA28671 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:08:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by fty-ss20.cisco.com (8.8.4/1.34) id LAA10616; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:59:38 GMT Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:59:38 GMT From: Frank Terhaar-Yonkers Message-Id: <199703181159.LAA10616@fty-ss20.cisco.com> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: CTM 0292 X-Face: ,fjtWiMPydUaSQl%8[eTg`u:^BXt&T)Sny(6w\*U"5D9H[Z$kG%Q/z;Z=NwrPiXf-aMF3R) Rsand$,]26-8>5@HD(A3A79gN|0%NHsdek4mT8E,>j+\w!~d2#nH;~NV!5a0"`5$Cj8d\or(Jy/JQ_ |uc;C[filmZ(~#lre*l:|O%d/PJFy`.5w8)sMZ-)QI3TaV"j'k X-Mailer: [XMailTool v3.1.0] Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I didn't get all of this one and not all of it is on the FTP site. (/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-stable/ctm) Could someone please may it to me? TIA - Frank \\\\////\\\\////\\\\\////\\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\////\\\\ Frank Terhaar-Yonkers Cisco Systems, Inc. Engineering Services, W2 F3 5 7025 Kit Creek Road PO Box 14987 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 fty@cisco.com voice (919)472-2101 FAX (919)472-2940 pager (800)796-7363 pin 1008366 -or- fty@airnote.net From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 09:06:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA07908 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:06:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.connectnet.com ([207.110.0.12]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA07903 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:05:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from wink.connectnet.com (Studded@wink.connectnet.com [206.251.156.23]) by smtp.connectnet.com (8.8.5/Connectnet-2.2) with SMTP id JAA25152; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:05:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703181705.JAA25152@smtp.connectnet.com> From: "That Doug Guy" To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 09:04:38 -0800 Reply-To: "That Doug Guy" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: That Doug Guy's Registered PMMail 1.9 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:28 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. Bah, defecation occurs. :-) And it hasn't been a *big* problem, but one that should be addressed as the product matures. [snip] > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? No. As someone pointed out, the people who need to know are either here (on the lists) already, or could easily reached with a prominent www page. Also, assuming that FreeBSD has a long, healthy life, making the change now flattens the learning curve over time (assuming that a change is needed, and I believe it is). > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development I think that perhaps the wrong approach is being considered. First of all, if there is any renaming to be done, the -current tag has to be discarded. When I first started learning about FreeBSD, it seemed to me that -current would be the branch I wanted to use because it was the most up to date. I found out later that -current really *means* experimental. Here is what I would like to see, with the caveat that I have absolutely no idea how it would look in a CVS tree. :-) For the next three months: 2.1.x -Stable Keep this branch as up to date as possible with security and major bug fixes, but put a warning in the readme's that plans should be made to upgrade to 2.2. 2.2.x -Release Always the last one that went out the door, maintaining the same quality standards we have for -Release versions now, but not guaranteed stable. 2.2.x -Development The latest and greatest 2.2 code. Run at your own risk, but probably safe. 3.x -Experimental Big red warning labels all over the box, just like it is now. Assuming that 2.2 proves itself, in three months this migrates to: 2.1.x -Frozen So long, thanks for the memories, but this code is no longer being developed, and will go away in 3 months. (So 6 months from the date the naming scheme goes into effect, no more 2.1 branch.) 2.2.x -Stable Maintains the quality standards we have for -Stable now, with some structure in place to see that security and major bug fixes are backported. 2.2.x -Release and -Development, same as above. 3.x -Experimental (also same as above). This minimized the time period that people have to spend trying to support 3 trees (the argument about volunteers spreading their own precious time thinly is well taken) to a reasonable period, and gives 2.2 the agreed upon time to prove itself. Hope this helps, Doug From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 11:10:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA18526 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA18515 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 11:10:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bagpuss.visint.co.uk (bagpuss.visint.co.uk [194.207.134.1]) by bagpuss.visint.co.uk (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA01074; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:10:39 GMT Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:10:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Stephen Roome To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Richard Wackerbarth , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists In-Reply-To: <8785.858624268@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > So we picked poor names for our branches. We blew it. It's not that > hard to do in an evolutionary environment like this one, but now > rather than continue to natter on for another dozen rounds about how > terrible the current naming scheme is, I really would prefer to see > the "general public" answer these two simple questions: I don't think you blew it, it's just unfortunate that these terms could be a cause of confusion, you yourself said this was an evolutionary environment. Wouldn't it be wrong if the terms we use to describe that environment don't evolve with it ? Particularly seeing as the environment to be described has changed so much. (how many development trees are there !?) > > a) Would the confusion caused by an abrupt name change > exceed the confusion caused by the current conventions? At the point of a change there will always be more confusion, I was confused (or at least, I had some learning to do) when I first changed my computer over from running Windows to FreeBSD, but everything is now much less a source of confusion. So the answer to a is YES, it will cause confusion. > > b) Assuming that the answer to (a) is no and now you've got > carte blanche to change things, what names would you choose > to describe the 3 tracks of development (mostly quiescent, > current release track, bleeding edge development) which you > feel would most adequately convey their purpose to the > layperson? Explain your rationale for each choice. I don't agree with the logic here, it seems to miss that although an abrupt change will cause more confusion now, it will cause less confusion to future people who have to deal with these terms than if we stick with them. I don't see how we can happily wander into a permanent future of incompatible terminology simply so that it is easier now. As long there is a sensible migration plan then any change for the better should be made assuming FreeBSD will go on for ever (would you rather assume otherwise ?). It seems that there is unanimous (although, as an 'armchair' student of human behaviour, I can see that someone might love these terms) agreement that the terms that are currently in use to describe the various releases of FreeBSD are either no longer appropriate or a description, which to many seems to be inaccurate (although, again, they could be seen to be a good description, but one would need to know more about each release to see why, as most people reading this probably do.) (Don't read this paragraph if you hate M$ Windoze) The easiest way to rename the branches to explain to Joe Public would be to call the different releases 3.1, 95, and NT. Although someone might have to explain that this is only in the way the releases compare to each other, not to the Microsoft versions! (Oh, someone just pointed out as well, FreeBSD 3.1 shouldn't get released, it should skip straight to 3.2 to avoid idiots relating it to Windows 3.1, which everyone knows was awful!) On the subject of an actual name, I rather liked my original idea of -past, -present and -future, which don't elaborate any more than is necessary. Although -future might be best called -development to avoid too many morons thinking it's stable already and perfect for their Mega-Budget production environment. The only distinction that is important is that what we now call -current should be very noticeable under development, and that the other two versions are previous and present releases. One option is not in the naming at all, but how they are given to people, it doesn't seem necessary to put the -current tree next to -stable and -release in a directory on an FTP site.. So, in short, my suggestion would be: 2.1.7-previous-release OR 2.1.7-previous 2.2-current-release OR 2.2-current 3.0-development-only OR 3.0-development (This should be kept separate from 2.2 and 2.1.7 on the FTP sites in order to minimize confusion.. Anyone who can't find out how to get hold of 3.0-development anyway certainly shouldn't be using it!) If it's felt to be necessary to cut the length of the descriptions down then so be it, but why not go for a longer description, especially if it actually expains it to some extent, as explanation this seems vital. Steve Roome. -- (Lame Signature File - please replace name and give to some manager) Stephen B. Roome VIP BSc(Hons) BSC Blah Blah. Arrogant TM. Very Important Sounding Job Title From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 12:05:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA23957 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mercury.uniserve.com (mercury.uniserve.com [204.191.197.248]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA23950 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:05:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by mercury.uniserve.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA03709; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:03:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:08:47 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius To: David Hawkins cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: root & /etc/nologin In-Reply-To: <199703180534.VAA04418@ohio.river.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, David Hawkins wrote: > Question: if there's an /etc/nologin in place can root still > login at the console? I believe so. > I want to start a 'make world' from home and then drive to where > the computer is (90 minutes away if I'm lucky) and login at the > console to build the kernel. The system can do a make world in 90 minutes? Must be pretty fast. Why not build the kernel remotely too? ... > later, david > -- > David Hawkins -- dhawk@river.org > Do you know what a pessimist is? A person who thinks everybody as > nasty as himself, and hates them for it. -- George Bernard Shaw > Tom From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 12:41:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA26657 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26644 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [204.69.236.50] (GATEWAY.SKIPSTONE.COM [198.214.10.129]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA16988; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:41:09 -0600 (CST) Date: 18 Mar 97 14:42:38 -0600 Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists From: "Richard Wackerbarth" To: "That Doug Guy" Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0b1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 11:04 AM, That Doug Guy wrote: > I think that perhaps the wrong approach is being considered. >First of all, if there is any renaming to be done, the -current tag has to >be discarded. When I first started learning about FreeBSD, it seemed to >me that -current would be the branch I wanted to use because it was the >most up to date. I found out later that -current really *means* >experimental. Here is what I would like to see, with the caveat that I >have absolutely no idea how it would look in a CVS tree. :-) > >For the next three months: > >2.1.x -Stable > Keep this branch as up to date as possible with security and major >bug fixes, but put a warning in the readme's that plans should be made to >upgrade to 2.2. > >2.2.x -Release > Always the last one that went out the door, maintaining the same >quality standards we have for -Release versions now, but not guaranteed >stable. > >2.2.x -Development > The latest and greatest 2.2 code. Run at your own risk, but >probably safe. I think this reflects a lack of understanding of the CVS process. within the FreeBSD tree, there are various identifiable branches, 2.1, 2.2, and the "head" branch being the ones of interest. Along any branch labels can be attached; for example - 2.2-RELEASE. It is possible to retrieve the source code by date or label and from any branch. From a practical point, 2.2-RELEASE is dead. There is a slightly newer version of the 2.2 branch which is the active point on that branch. >3.x -Experimental > Big red warning labels all over the box, just like it is now. This whole discussion started about "which mailing list to use". I think the concensus is that there needs to be an additional one to separate 2.2 from 3.x. Rather that use list names which change over time, I suggest that we simply create a list for FreeBSD-2.1, a list for FreeBSD-2.2, and a third list for the head of the development branch. As a system matures along the path that you have indicated, the conversation about it can still remain on one list for that branch because, de facto, you cannot get any younger. Further, there would clearly be one appropriate list for each branch and that list remains with the branch rather than the status which will come and go. Anyone who cannot find the correct list should probably be asking on "questions". The rest should know which verson of the system they are running. As a transition for the people who are accustomed to "stable" and "current", we can forward their input to one or more lists until they learn (which I suspect will be fairly rapidly) the better name to use. From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 13:33:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA01208 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 13:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.mem.net (home.mem.net [206.155.209.33]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA01189 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 13:32:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from HP7020 (dyn029.tc-1.mem.net [206.156.77.29]) by home.mem.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA25541 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:30:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <332F09FE.7EA9@mem.net> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:32:46 -0600 From: Ken Reply-To: welk@mem.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: FTP problem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Problem of the day for this newbie: FTP transfers from client to FreeBSD 2.1.5 server usually fail or are so slow that I abort the process. The result typically is that the file is created in the target directory but with zero bytes. Sometimes a partial transfer occurs. Occasionally, a full, successful transfer occurs. Subsequent to failures, it seems additonal FTP requests, without breaking the FTP link, are very, very slow or fail. Slow is defined here as minutes for a 10K transfer (or until I give up on the transfer). When using an FTP client application that indicates transfer progress, it may be giving a useful clue in that it appears that 8K may get transfered quickly but then there is virtually no additional movement of data. However, smaller files also either fail to transfer or take so long I abort the process. This is a single client communicating with the FreeBSD server via 10baseT. Permissions for the server's target directory are set to rwx for the owner, who is the user doing the FTP transfers. Transfers from the server to the client are as fast as expected. Will anyone give me guidance in what is being done incorrectly here? Thanks. Ken Welch welk@mem.net From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 14:22:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA06036 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:22:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from hil-img-6.compuserve.com (hil-img-6.compuserve.com [149.174.177.136]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA06031 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 14:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by hil-img-6.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA24466; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:20:30 -0500 Date: 18 Mar 97 17:18:36 EST From: Berend de Boer <100120.3121@CompuServe.COM> To: "'Mike Nowlin'" , "'FreeBSD stable'" Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <970318221835_100120.3121_EHU142-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk You wrote: >2.1-USE_ME >2.2-MAYBE_USE_ME >3.0-YOU_GOTTA_BE_NUTS_IF_YOU_TRUST_THIS_ONE The best suggestion so far. I support this one above my own suggestion. These wording clearly shows that people need to do some further reading before trying one out. Maybe the wording for 3.0 needs to be a bit adapted :-) Groetjes, Berend. From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 16:33:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA16452 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:33:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA16442 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:33:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.4/8.7.3) id QAA17652; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:32:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:32:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703190032.QAA17652@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com CC: rkw@dataplex.net, imp@village.org, stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199703181334.FAA16165@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com) Subject: ports-release (Re: -current and -stable mailing lists) From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Sorry I didn't catch this the first time. I read this mail only because it came from Jordan. (He may not be always right, but he sure says a lot of amusing things. :) IMO it's a very bad idea to tack in a somewhat irrelevant comment at the end of a long winding mail about an ongoing debate that many people have already started deleting whole. * > IMHO, one thing that is very discouraging to contributions is the * > "ports" situation. I feel that the strong effort toward the 3.0 * > branch, even before 2.2 was released, discourages contributions * > to that major part of the system. I have no idea where that "even before 2.2 was released" came from. The ports tree has been practically bound to 2.2 as soon as it was branched, and I have not allowed any change that breaks a build on a 2.2 machine. * You don't even have a workable * > mechanism to support ports for 2.2, much less 2.1. As a result, It's not as much as a problem of mechanism, as it's a matter of human resources. We need another person that can do the work (both in quality and quantity) that I'm doing. And if there exists such a person, do we really want him tied up to maintaining the 2.2 tree instead of working on the -current ports? I've been opposed to the parallel development of two branches from the very beginning for this reason. But all that said, we are now working on a mechanism to allow us to keep the 2.2 ports up to date. Satoshi From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 19:01:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA28925 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:01:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.connectnet.com ([207.110.0.12]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28911 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:01:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from wink.connectnet.com (Studded@wink.connectnet.com [206.251.156.23]) by smtp.connectnet.com (8.8.5/Connectnet-2.2) with SMTP id TAA22405; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 19:02:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703190302.TAA22405@smtp.connectnet.com> From: "That Doug Guy" To: "Richard Wackerbarth" Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 19:01:22 -0800 Reply-To: "That Doug Guy" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: That Doug Guy's Registered PMMail 1.9 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 18 Mar 97 14:42:38 -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 11:04 AM, That Doug Guy >wrote: >>Here is what I would like to see, with the caveat that I >>have absolutely no idea how it would look in a CVS tree. :-) >I think this reflects a lack of understanding of the CVS process. I made that explicit in my letter, in fact you quoted me. :) >within the FreeBSD tree, there are various identifiable branches, 2.1, 2.2, >and the "head" branch being the ones of interest. Along any branch labels >can be attached; for example - 2.2-RELEASE. It is possible to retrieve the >source code by date or label and from any branch. From a practical point, >2.2-RELEASE is dead. There is a slightly newer version >of the 2.2 branch which is the active point on that branch. My system allows for retrieving (for example) 2.2.1-Release, or 2.2-Development (which if I understand you correctly is the "active point on that branch." In regards to using my system for cvs tags, in what way is it deficient? >>3.x -Experimental >> Big red warning labels all over the box, just like it is now. > >This whole discussion started about "which mailing list to use". True, however Jordan's question was if I had carte blanche to change the tags, how would I do it. >I think the concensus is that there needs to be an additional one to separate 2.2 from 3.x. Frankly I'm still fuzzy as to why 2.2 questions can't/shouldn't go to -questions, and 3.0 questions can't/shouldn't go to -current. >Rather that use list names which change over time, I suggest that we simply >create a list for FreeBSD-2.1, a list for FreeBSD-2.2, and a third list for >the head of the development branch. Can you explain your thinking behind this? >As a system matures along the path that you have indicated, the >conversation about >it can still remain on one list for that branch because, de facto, you >cannot get any younger. The path I indicated has 2.1 dying off in 3 months, so a new list for it would not really be useful, and will eventually have to be re-directed to -questions anyway. >Further, there would clearly be one appropriate list for each branch and >that list >remains with the branch rather than the status which will come and go. With respect, I think that you are trying to tie things together that are not necessarily related. At least, my thesis here is that in order for FreeBSD to succeed, the perspective that only programmers are welcome at the table has to change. Please note that I am not accusing Richard of this, I don't know him or his views. What I'm trying to say is that the current system is confusing, and in my opinion needlessly so. The fact that once you've been around a while and have twiddled with the source tree some, it does have some vague sort of relevance is not a convincing argument for keeping it. :) Please note as well that I'm not necessarily campaigning heavily for my idea. There may very well be problems with it that I don't understand. The question was asked that if *I* was designing a system that would make sense to the average user, how would I do it. I believe the system I have outlined does a good job of making things clear to new users, while also taking into consideration the concerns that I've seen on the list(s), as I understand them anyway. blessings, Doug From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 22:02:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA08400 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08395 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA23174; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:02:18 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703190302.TAA22405@smtp.connectnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:03:00 -0600 To: "That Doug Guy" From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 9:01 PM -0600 3/18/97, That Doug Guy wrote: >On 18 Mar 97 14:42:38 -0600, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >>I think this reflects a lack of understanding of the CVS process. > > I made that explicit in my letter, in fact you quoted me. :) I was simply trying to point out that I agreed that your admitted lack of knowledge of the details of CVS was the likely source of misunderstanding. I then proceed to describe some of that detail in an effort to acquaint you with the workings of the system. >>within the FreeBSD tree, there are various identifiable branches, 2.1, 2.2, >>and the "head" branch being the ones of interest. Along any branch labels >>can be attached; for example - 2.2-RELEASE. It is possible to retrieve the >>source code by date or label and from any branch. From a practical point, >>2.2-RELEASE is dead. There is a slightly newer version >>of the 2.2 branch which is the active point on that branch. > > My system allows for retrieving (for example) 2.2.1-Release, or >2.2-Development (which if I understand you correctly is the "active point >on that branch." In regards to using my system for cvs tags, in what way >is it deficient? There is only one tag which represents the active point of the 2.2 branch. That tag must remain invariant as the status of the branch changes through the various phases of product life cycle. >>I think the concensus is that there needs to be an additional one to >>separate 2.2 from 3.x. > > Frankly I'm still fuzzy as to why 2.2 questions can't/shouldn't go >to -questions, and 3.0 questions can't/shouldn't go to -current. >>Rather that use list names which change over time, I suggest that we simply >>create a list for FreeBSD-2.1, a list for FreeBSD-2.2, and a third list for >>the head of the development branch. > > Can you explain your thinking behind this? Each branch gets its own unique discussion list. We don't have the problem which would occur because the appropriate list changes simply because the FreeBSD release engineer did some more work. As you note, "3.0 go to -current" is fine today. Next week (month/year) your 3.0 question going to -current would get a response to the effect "this list is for discussion of 4.2. Please redirect your question to the xxx list. > The path I indicated has 2.1 dying off in 3 months, so a new list >for it would not really be useful, and will eventually have to be >re-directed to -questions anyway. Certainly true. However, for the sake of consistency you should move the list even if it is going to last for only a few months. You don't want the needless confusion created because the rule would be "Questions about version A.B.C go to the 'FreeBSD-A_B list EXCEPT 2.1.7 which is still on FreeBSD-stable" > With respect, I think that you are trying to tie things together >that are not necessarily related. >At least, my thesis here is that in >order for FreeBSD to succeed, the perspective that only programmers are >welcome at the table has to change. Please note that I am not accusing >Richard of this, I don't know him or his views. I think that my views are much closer to this than those of most of the FreeBSD development team. > What I'm trying to say is >that the current system is confusing, and in my opinion needlessly so. >The fact that once you've been around a while and have twiddled with the >source tree some, it does have some vague sort of relevance is not a >convincing argument for keeping it. :) This does not really have anything to do with the source tree, per se. I has to do with the fact that various incarnations of FreeBSD have functional characteristics which are related to the system release rather than its maturity. If you want parts for your 1997 Ford, would you go to the "New Car" dealer or to the "Used Car" dealer? What if I ask that question in October, 1997? The "New Car" dealer would say "Sorry, that is last year's model. You must see the 'Used Car' department" :-( I think that you are placing too much emphasis on the temporal quality rather than a permanent one. From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 22:28:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA20830 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:28:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (root@gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA20750 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:28:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191]) by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA08634 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:28:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194]) by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA13361 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gdonl@localhost) by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA21253 for stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:28:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 22:28:18 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis Message-Id: <199703190628.WAA21253@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: src-2.1.0292 ctm update? Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I got 12 of 13 parts of src-2.1.0292 in the mail over the last few days. I never received part 1, and it appears that ftp.freebsd.org didn't either. --- Truck From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 18 23:18:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA00280 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:18:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA00250 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA00899; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 01:18:16 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@shrimp.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199703190628.WAA21253@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 01:16:30 -0600 To: Don Lewis From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: src-2.1.0292 ctm update? Cc: stable@freebsd.org Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 12:28 AM -0600 3/19/97, Don Lewis wrote: >I got 12 of 13 parts of src-2.1.0292 in the mail over the last few days. >I never received part 1, and it appears that ftp.freebsd.org didn't either. I just resent part 1 to both the fast and the slow lists. Would someone from each list please confirm that they have received all parts. Send replys to my personal mailbox rkw@dataplex.net within the next 6 hours (1400Z on 19Mar) I'll post another message if I need any feedback after that time. From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 19 09:53:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA11025 for stable-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:53:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bios_nt.sunbeach.net (name2.sunbeach.net [205.214.199.131]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA11012 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:53:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bios_nt.sunbeach.net by bios_nt.sunbeach.net (NTMail 3.02.10) with ESMTP id da009311 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 13:55:58 +0000 Message-ID: <3330269E.4639@sunbeach.net> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 13:47:10 -0400 From: Lord Granitor Reply-To: granitor@sunbeach.net Organization: Lordz of Bim X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: (no subject) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk subscribe freebsd-stable From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Mar 20 06:10:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA15666 for stable-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:10:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hawk.gnome.co.uk (gnome.gw.cerbernet.co.uk [193.243.224.22]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA15645; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:10:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jacs@localhost) by hawk.gnome.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA00472; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:09:59 GMT Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:09:59 GMT From: Chris Stenton Subject: ipfw with kerberos problem To: stable@freebsd.org Cc: security@freebsd.org Message-Id: Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I have just activated ipfw within 2.1.7.1 with an add 65000 allow all from any to any rule However, it will not allow me to logon from the console or via telnet. Thankfully xdm would allow me in. If I kill kerberos then I can logon via telnet once initkt times out. Any ideas what is wrong? Thanks Chris From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Mar 22 16:38:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA10642 for stable-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ping.at (pong.ping.at [193.81.13.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA10623 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:38:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by ping.at with UUCP id AA28990 (5.67b8/ping for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org); Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:37:27 +0100 Received: (from alwin@localhost) by site65.ping.at (8.8.5/8.7.3) id BAA19831; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:35:28 +0100 (MET) From: Alexander Winkler Message-Id: <199703230035.BAA19831@site65.ping.at> Subject: howto To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:35:28 +0100 (MET) Cc: alwin@site65.ping.at (Alexander Winkler) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hallo! is it possible to get a stable version without ftp'ing the 28MB base delta i'm using 2.1.7 and 2.1.7.1 and have these sousces, i, too have the deltas 173 - now! thanks, alex