From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 17 06:37:58 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA02941 for current-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 06:37:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from server.netcraft.co.uk (server.netcraft.co.uk [194.72.238.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA02920 Sun, 17 Dec 1995 06:37:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from paul@localhost) by server.netcraft.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA13800; Sun, 17 Dec 1995 14:36:18 GMT From: Paul Richards Message-Id: <199512171436.OAA13800@server.netcraft.co.uk> Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 14:36:17 +0000 (GMT) Cc: andreas@knobel.gun.de, current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, jkh@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <7748.819191407@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Dec 17, 95 01:10:07 am Reply-to: paul@netcraft.co.uk X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In reply to Jordan K. Hubbard who said > > People committing to -current need to get their acts together and stop > destabilising it so much. Yes, that's a somewhat sharply worded > statement, but I think that the split into 2.1 and 2.2 has been taken > by some to be implicit permission for a "free for all" in -current, > and that was NEVER the intention of that branch! I think me and Jordan are going to vehemently agree for a change :-) I'm in exactly this position, installed 2.1 on my new box (yes I've finally got myself a box again) and I want to upgrade to current to try out all the new toys but it's so broken that I'm going to get myself cut off from the world if it's on my one and only box. > If you've got something truly whacked-out experimental to bring in > then you're supposed to test it out on your own machine(s) to the > level where it, as an absolute minimum, does not make the system > unusable. If you can't reasonably guarantee this, then it should stay > in your local tree until you can. Absolutely, the vm headers are a good example. Peter was fixing code for a while after this commit because some parts of the tree WOULDN'T EVEN COMPILE! Was a make world done before this commit, I somehow doubt it given the glaring problems that Peter fixed. Missing the odd bug when changing the filesystem to allow 1Tb files is one thing and is what -current is for, not doing even a basic sanity check to make sure the tree still compiles is a totally different case and one we used to be a lot more stern about when it happened. I think the core team has become a little too soft when dealing with it's cotributors :-) -- Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd. Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)