From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jun 6 13:38:49 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA04467 for stable-outgoing; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA04431 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (sendmail/PALMER-1) with ESMTP id VAA27809; Thu, 6 Jun 1996 21:35:26 +0100 (BST) To: Johan Granlund cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , stable@FreeBSD.ORG From: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: The demise of -stable In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jun 1996 22:11:11 -0000." <199606061914.VAA07596@hermes.algonet.se> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 21:35:25 +0100 Message-ID: <27807.834093325@palmer.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Johan Granlund wrote in message ID <199606061914.VAA07596@hermes.algonet.se>: > > People have been suggesting that we resurrect "the patch kit" and I > > really don't know what to say about that. If someone else were to > > do the actual grunt work, sure, I guess I could see it working. The > > group at large would certainly be more cooperative partners that > > Jolitz ever was :-). > Another probably bad idea. > How about a stable branch as now. With bugfixes and choice bits from > the -current tree. What a lot of people are forgetting is the tool currently in use (CVS) does NOT have the required power/features to do branch maintence for long periods, or sustain multiple branches. Some of the aftermath of this mega-merge by Jordan is proof (you can't tell when branch tags were added, for example). It may look nice and rosy for people who just sup/ctm/ftp the source tree from the -stable branch every so often and work from that, but for people actually using it day-to-day in this situation it's far from nice. If nothing else, you really need 2 full source trees checked out all the time (one from -stable, one from -current). That's about 250Mb's of disk space down the drain right away, which on freefall, where you have multiple people working on both trees, is a very big issue. The -stable branch has WAY outlived it's intended lifespan. Perhaps if we actually got the releases out on time we could go back to a -stable branch philosophy, as it won't be around for the year or so that this one has... (no insult/offense intended to the release team, as I've been involved to some extent or other with the past 3 releases, so I know it's not an easy job) Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info