Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 16:17:59 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>, Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, Francisco Reyes <fran@reyes.somos.net>, FreeBSd Chat list <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why can't upgrades be simpler? Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20000629161533.04b7b100@localhost> In-Reply-To: <v04220804b580d230a616@[10.0.1.2]> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000628112835.00de8710@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000627131107.0449d500@localhost> <200006270352.XAA29208@sanson.reyes.somos.net> <200006270352.XAA29208@sanson.reyes.somos.net> <20000626232045.A17065@orion.ac.hmc.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20000627131107.0449d500@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000628112835.00de8710@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:19 AM 6/29/2000, Brad Knowles wrote: > I've been thinking more and more lately that FreeBSD needs a three-branch model -- a "-DEVEL" branch where major architectural changes are made (such as the upcoming SMP work), a "-CURRENT" branch where most of the real development is done for both kernel and userland (so long as it doesn't require major architectural changes, such as the /dev/random stuff), and a "-STABLE" where things get moved once they have proven themselves in "-CURRENT" and are safe to be moved down. That was sort of what existed just recently, until 3.5-RELEASE. But unfortunately, what happened was that 3.4-STABLE got almost no attention. All of the developers were focused on 4.0 and 5.0. How does one deal with the problem of developers all wanting to swarm toward the bleeding edge? Perhaps there should be paid maintenance of the older branches, covered by CD sales? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20000629161533.04b7b100>