Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:21:28 +0100 From: paul@originative.co.uk To: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: -stable vs -current (was Re: solid NFS patch #6... ) Message-ID: <A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FF1E@octopus>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Dillon [mailto:dillon@apollo.backplane.com] > Sent: 01 May 1999 00:53 > To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: -stable vs -current (was Re: solid NFS patch #6... ) > > I expect the 3.2 release to be a really good release. > > It is true that -current has been, more often then not, > more stable then > -stable in the last two months. This is because fixes > were being made > to -current more quickly then they could be backported to > -stable. Most > of these fixes *have* been backported at this point. > There are still a > few that have not that are on my hot list ( and still not > addressed, even > with prodding ). There are also a few bug fixes that > simply cannot be > backported to stable without some pain ( i.e. require the complete > replacement of a number of subsystems ), and pain is not > in the cards > with the 3.2 release so close. But no-one is really testing -stable. How many people have a stable machine and a current machine and spend as much time testing stable as they do current? > It is hard enough dealing with two branches of the source > tree. I will > personally take my Super Soaker 5000 to anyone suggesting > that we have > *three* !!!!. Sqirt sqirt sqirt! The -stable branch shouldn't have anything done to it, that's my whole point, we shouldn't be merging stuff back into the -stable branch, only fix specific straightforward problems that don't require complete re-engineering. > I am hoping that we will be able to accomplish a major > synchronization > after the 3.2 release. I personally believe that > -current is stable > enough that we should do one big-assed commit to sync > -stable up to the > current -current and then continue as per normal. I only > wish EGCS > hadn't been incorporated quite yet. At the very least, I want to > sync *my* stuff up ( NFS/VM/VFS/BIO/VN/SWAPPER ). Then what happens to -stable, is it going to get thouroughly tested with all these changes? You're currently treating -stable as a "beta stable" in that users who track it are being used as beta testers to find the bugs caused by merges from current. There's no track for "really stable" users who want to pick up necessary bug fixes. Paul. 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?A6D02246E1ABD2119F5200C0F0303D10FF1E>