Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:18 GMT From: James Raynard <fqueries@jraynard.demon.co.uk> To: terry@lambert.org Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, terry@lambert.org, gpalmer@freebsd.org, ALHACK@am.pnu.com, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Caldera Linux Message-ID: <199607091429.OAA01215@jraynard.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199607090157.SAA23331@phaeton.artisoft.com> (message from Terry Lambert on Mon, 8 Jul 1996 18:57:12 -0700 (MST))
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. There probably isn't much of interest to kernel hackers in 2.1.5 - it's aimed mainly at users who want to have existing bugs fixed without new ones being introduced at the same time :-) > > > 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. The question is one of stability, not of value judgments. I don't believe anyone is arguing that large changes are automatically bad, just that it takes longer for them to settle down sufficiently to be made available in a release. -- James Raynard, Edinburgh, Scotland james@jraynard.demon.co.uk http://www.freebsd.org/~jraynard/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607091429.OAA01215>