Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:16:08 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Matthew Reimer <mreimer@vpop.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <46265.924747368@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:14:18 BST." <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904212009340.85882-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I wonder if it would be too radical to suggest that the release cycle for > 4.0 be *much* shorter than the 3.0 cycle. Maintaining two branches gets > worse and worse as time goes on and it just becomes a waste of programmer > time. If we are reasonably careful with the 4.0 tree, I think a 4.0 What's your definition of "much" in this case? I also disagree that the multi-branch model is a "waste" of programmer time since it's what keeps us able to have an experimental line of development at all. To programmers, that's pretty important. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46265.924747368>