Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 12:34:44 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers), joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) Subject: Re: Minutes of the Thursday, April 13th core team meeting in Berkeley. Message-ID: <7175.798406484@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Apr 95 08:49:46 %2B0200." <199504200649.IAA02111@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> However, _every_ release should be of some basic quality that's better > than say the average ***x release quality. We all know about 2.0, but > it should remain an exception. Yeah, what makes our job for 2.1 so > hard is the fact that 1.1.5.1 was of such a quality that it beats many > commercial systems -- and we want to have 2.1 at least as stable as > 1.1.5.1. And therein, as they say in American (and England), lies the rub. We are on the hook to make 2.1 everything 1.1.5.1 is and now it looks like we'll be doing that all the way up through June. This is only right and proper since that's genuinely how long it's going to take to do a 1.1.5.1 equivalent, but this still leaves things like the upcoming 2.0.6 unaccounted for. How do we deal with this in the future so that it's not such a mess? We have an imperative to release often, lest we fall into the same trap that the other *BSDs have (losing users after going underground for 6 months or more) and we have an imperative to release quality releases that distinguish us from some of Linux's worst attributes. I'm open to suggestions! :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7175.798406484>