From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  5 02:22:00 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8192516A4CE; Tue,  5 Apr 2005 02:22:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1B91F43D1F; Tue,  5 Apr 2005 02:22:00 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id A2D89149C2; Mon,  4 Apr 2005 21:21:59 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:21:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho
To: Joe <fbsd_user@a1poweruser.com>
In-Reply-To: <200504041949.j34JnnFN020743@www.freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0504042117270.10551-100000@pancho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: kern/79539: 5.3 nfs tasks running and not selected at install
 time
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 02:22:00 -0000

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Joe wrote:

> This was reported 1/16/2004 in 5.2 RC2 as Problem Report kern/61438 and
> somebody lowered its importance so it has never been addressed.

There is a myth that setting the priority obligates any developer to
work on any open PR.  In actuality FreeBSD is developed and maintained
almost completely by volunteers and as such no one is really obligated
to work on anything.

> Why have a "RC" version if problems are not going to be addressed
> and fixed before becoming a release version.    

Many problems do indeed get addressed during an RC period.  In particular
the QA cycles for 5.2 and 5.3 fixed dozens if not hundreds of problems.
But if we waited until every single problem was fixed we would never
release any versions whatsoever.

We do the best we can given the available volunteers and beyond that
there is really no guarantee.

mcl