From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Jun 9 01:42:56 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA07635 for stable-outgoing; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 01:42:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA07614 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 01:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Root.COM (8.7.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id BAA14891; Sun, 9 Jun 1996 01:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199606090842.BAA14891@Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: implode.Root.COM: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: Narvi cc: stable@freebsd.org, "Jordan K. Hubbard" Subject: Re: Policy on -stable In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Jun 1996 10:51:33 +0300." From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 01:42:39 -0700 Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > This is a mail regarding the core-team policy on stable which might be >of general intrest. From the mails over recent days, it is obvious that the >current situation with -stable is greatly broken and is redunt to be >continued. But as there has been no clear enough announcement from the >core team on the future of -stable (sorry if it's just me), let me ask: > >1) Shall there be 2 releases based on -stable, like planned before (that > is - 2.1.1-RELEASE and 2.1.5-RELEASE) or just one. We only planned on one more release from that branch: 2.1.5. We once thought of calling it 2.1.1, but there are too many changes to call it this and people wouldn't appreciate the significance of the release. >2) Shall an attempt be made to find resources (and a full-timer) to keep > -stable (mean a non-active attempt from the part of the core-team > rather than going out and trying to find the money). That would be nice, but finding that person is going to be very difficult. Finding a person who sends me email for every kernel patch, asking if it should be included, is NOT what we need - this would consume more time than if I just did it myself. >3) If -stable is dropped (as it seems to be more then possible on the > moment) what will be the future policy on -stable-like things? Shall > there be a -stable branch for some time before the release to which only > bug-fixes will be applied? Shall there be a post-relese -stable-like > bug-fix branch? It's clear that the concept of a -stable is important to a large number of people. We'll have to find some way to achieve the same end in an easier to manage fashion. We don't have a solution to this yet. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project