Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 16:39:04 +0300 (EET DST) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Status of -stable Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960611163125.17445B-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199606110154.TAA16483@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eat good food, preserve nature, be nice to all nice people :) On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Warner Losh wrote: > : 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. :-) > > OK. I've read all the posts in -hackers and -stable on this. I'm > only sending this to -stable. > > I like the idea of -stable where you have MAJOR bugfixes only. That's > it. No mega-commits. No trying to get neat new features. Only > security holes, core dumps, data corruption and kernel panic fixed. > The current -stable branch has been good for me in that it is 2.1R + a > few good patches. I'd be happy with that. Something that you'd have > to SUP once or maybe twice a month to keep current would be ideal. > Wanna commit anything else: Tough. Use -current. This is somewhat of > a hard line, I know, but it would mirror well what standard practice > in the industry is. Then there would not be the ccd driver in -stable... :-( > > I agree that the current -stable branch has gotten way out of hand and > nothing like it should continue to exist in the post-2.1.5 world. > Once 2.2 is out, it might be a good idea to have something like this > around, but only with a much more restricted scope. Looking at the > logs, I'd restrict the patches to about 1/10th their current (backed > out) size. Now, if I remeber everyting correctly, the 2.1 branch was supposed to end with 2.1.5 anyways. > > There were two problems, that I saw from the bleachers, with this: > 1) -stable and -current had drifted so far that automated > source code control of merging was nightmarish at best. > 2) -stable had too many changes to it after 2.1R was > released. > > Any future -stable branches should be relatively small deltas from the > last release. I tend to think of -stable as 2.1R with all the > supported patches to 2.1R pre-applied. > There has to be anyone yet to contradict this - at most, there have been just ifs... and thens... and nothing certain on the part of the -stable supporters. > I appreciate the monitary concerns raised here. I think that if the > volume of deltas are very small, one person could handle them in a > sane manner. Would make a good way to donate to the FreeBSD project, > IMHO. If no one comes forward, then I believe that the right approach > would be to kill the whole -stable concept. While it does > differentiate FreeBSD from the other BSDs out there, it is not worth > undue stress and strain on the core team to make it happen. Anything other than bug-fixes has surely been undue. > > However, that said, I understand and appreciate that the core team > will do what they want with their time. I further understand that it > is unreasonable for me to demand anything other than a CD rom when it > suits their (and not my) fancy (subject of course to my payment for > the cdrom). I appreciate what the core team has accomplished and am > proud to use the fruits of their labors and hope to continue to be > allowed to do so. > The words from us all. Sander > Warner > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960611163125.17445B-100000>