From owner-freebsd-stable Sat Jun 8 03:46:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id DAA18357 for stable-outgoing; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA18335 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA09763; Sat, 8 Jun 1996 03:45:34 -0700 (PDT) To: Narvi cc: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" , Greg Lehey , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The -stable problem: my view In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 08 Jun 1996 12:53:38 +0300." Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 03:45:34 -0700 Message-ID: <9761.834230734@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > A great idea! But why does this all openly come out only now? At least > part of the solution might be just saying - maintainers and mergerers > for stable needed! Would more volunteer based development of -stable be > realy that hard? Because I also think that if you're going to go down the road of supporting a legacy code base, you might as well do it all the way and stop fooling around with something that, if it becomes at all successful, will have highly conservative people counting on it. -stable has shown that production branches take on an identity of their own, which is a fine thing in and of itself but something with its own identity also needs a focal point to make sure that things stay on a reasonable track. I think that this needs to be at least one full-time position and, since trailing-edge development is no fun, it probably won't come from the volunteer pool (you could get someone, sure, but not the kind of full-timer I'd be hoping for). Jordan