Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 20:24:18 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Matt Behrens: Re: kernel compile problem Message-ID: <l03130300b19e494c0321@[208.2.87.10]> In-Reply-To: <199806052348.JAA10962@gsms01.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 6:48 PM -0500 6/5/98, Peter Jeremy wrote: >On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 06:42:00 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> >wrote: >> That brings us back to the question of "Why?". Should the 2.2 branch >>have been changed now? Perhaps this aspect should have been frozen until >>we are preparing for a 2.2.7 release. >I think this is backwards. These sort of changes should be made well >in advance of any proposed release so that they can be adequately >tested (and backed out if serious problems arise). Putting `major' >changes in just before a release is almost always a bad idea. It this case, I disagree. First, this is the "stable" branch. We are not supposed to be "debugging" features here. Unlike "current", users should expect to be able to build from it at all times. By introducing changes to the kernel which require a change to the config tool, the building of kernels is broken for users who do not have the full source and manually overcome the dependancy that is not handled automatically for them. If we wait until just before a new release, the window whereby they cannot build is reduced since they will get the new binary of the config tool soon. Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130300b19e494c0321>