From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jul 9 13:52:34 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA06433 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA06416; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:52:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aw14650; 9 Jul 96 20:41 GMT Received: from jraynard.demon.co.uk ([158.152.42.77]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01663; 9 Jul 96 20:50 +0100 Received: (from fqueries@localhost) by jraynard.demon.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01215; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:18 GMT Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:29:18 GMT Message-Id: <199607091429.OAA01215@jraynard.demon.co.uk> From: James Raynard To: terry@lambert.org CC: nate@mt.sri.com, terry@lambert.org, gpalmer@freebsd.org, ALHACK@am.pnu.com, questions@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199607090157.SAA23331@phaeton.artisoft.com> (message from Terry Lambert on Mon, 8 Jul 1996 18:57:12 -0700 (MST)) Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Caldera Linux Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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/