Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 18:57:12 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, gpalmer@freebsd.org, ALHACK@am.pnu.com, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Caldera Linux Message-ID: <199607090157.SAA23331@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199607090027.SAA15606@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Jul 8, 96 06:27:07 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > How many non-linux related files were touched for other features that > > changed between 2.1R and 2.1.5? > > Lots. Maybe 'touched' was a poor word. Many files were 'fixed' in the > 2.1 -> 2.1.5 upgrade, but very few new features were added, and a couple > of them shouldn't have been (/dev/random stuff). The ELF stuff is *new* > code, and as such doesn't fit the bill for the 'target' of the stable > release. OK, I can accept this. It means that there is really little value in 2.1.5R vs. 2.1R (from my personal point of view, anyway), but it is a solid, rational position. > > I don't think a "weight of printout" argument is really applicable in > > this case. > > It certainly is. The 'weight of printout' implies that the code is both > new *and* fairly untested on a large scale. No, it implies that the "number of files touched" is an arbiter of whether or not a change is a good one or not. I liked your rational approach (bugfix, not feature add) better. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607090157.SAA23331>