From owner-freebsd-current Sun Sep 21 19:11:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA02637 for current-outgoing; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.mat.net (root@earth.mat.net [206.246.122.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA02632 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Journey2.mat.net (journey2.mat.net [206.246.122.116]) by earth.mat.net (8.8.7/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA20104; Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:10:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:10:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@Journey2.mat.net To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" cc: Greg Lehey , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The 3.0-970920-SNAP CD has been cancelled. In-Reply-To: <16076.874891318@time.cdrom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 21, 1997 at 05:21:46PM -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > Sorry, we gave it our best shot [etc] > > > > > > Just FYI. Since the previous 3.0 SNAP is from May 23rd, I think we'll > > > also stop selling that one and simply put the SNAPshot product line to > > > sleep for awhile. > > > > Is this a recognition of what many of us have been suspecting, that > > -CURRENT is becoming less -STABLE? Wouldn't it be time to do a bit of > > thinking about how we can improve the situation? > > Well, while I think that we can always stand to improve our > development methodologies, it's also fair to say that running things > as a volunteer development effort will *always* impose certain > penalties and limit what it's possible to achieve in a given > time-frame. I agree here. Look around at any other volunteer OS. You guys might be surprised, actually, at how many there are (most are tiny). I had to become aware of some more, while working on the educational OS I've been involved with. Anyhow, compare FreeBSD's development with anyone else's out there, and maybe you'd agree with me, that no one else even comes close to the right mix of active development and stability we have. If you force current to be more stable, you'd lose some of that, maybe a lot. If we relax the rules on current (going in the other direction), we'd lose our stability. As it is, current is, yes, broken a lot. It always has been, we all know that, it goes thru cycles, and this is another low points. We can all remember high points, too. Not that I mind anyone complaining, that's good negative feedback, let's hear more. Complaints are good, just let's not translate that too rapidly into concrete rules. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------