Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 23:27:29 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: Terry Lee <terryl@ienet.com>, John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, stable@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org, scanner@webspan.net Subject: Re: Status of -stable Message-ID: <24183.834128849@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jun 1996 13:18:40 MDT." <199606061918.NAA26483@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That being said, I think we *could* stick with the -stable branch and > just leave it as John suggested. If things actually go into -stable, > it's because the developer does it, and *not* the release engineer. Well, OK. Let me see if I can sum up how I think things are all going to be able to work (and not work) in the future. If we choose not to kill -stable outright, which is clearly the easiest decision requiring the least effort (or discussion), then I see a user-supported -stable as the only real choice. Moreover, I would see this as supported by a consortium of folks - the ISP/developers and other users with a vested interest in -stable contributing patches and suggestions, and one or more volunteer commitfolk fielding and commiting these to the stable branch. Unlike Nate's suggestion, this would NOT be a task we'd expect the developers to pick up. Those few developers who've even tried to do this up to now have eyeballs which are over-strained from trying to look in two directions at once. Let's give 'em a break! This should be handled by one or at most two people who _really want_ -stable to live and are willing to slowly dribble patches into it. We've already been "outsourcing" the job of producing CTM deltas for -stable to Richard Wackerbarth, why not make all of -stable that way? Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24183.834128849>