Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 08:36:10 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, stable@FreeBSD.org, committers@FreeBSD.org, scanner@webspan.net Subject: Re: Status of -stable Message-ID: <199606061536.IAA00209@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <29756.834049027@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Well, Hmmm I LIKED the -stable tree. > > No question. If you don't actually have to be the one maintaining it, > it's great! :-) Well, I liked -stable too! Are you sure you're not over-reacting to the recent nightmare? That pesky post-traumatic stress syndrome thing? Hey, in time, the night sweats and flashbacks will pass. :-) It seems to me that -stable wasn't a big source of problems until this mega-commit thing happened. OK, so, we've learned that you can't do wholesale merges of every little thing into -stable. Fine. But what was the problem with the way we used it up until then? My view of it was that, when a person would commit a bug fix to -current, he would consider whether it should also go into -stable. Depending on the nature of the change, it might go into -stable immediately, a few weeks later, or never. It's a bit of a pain to merge change into -stable, granted, because you have to think about each file, and consider what should get merged and what should not. But isn't making judgements about individual cases an essential element of a so-called stable release? -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606061536.IAA00209>