From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 21 15:50:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D0E16A4CE; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:50:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF24743D6A; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:50:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5LFniVu029794; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:49:44 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <40D5FD8B.7070407@freebsd.org> References: <7071.208.178.23.220.1087509793.squirrel@208.178.23.220> <20040618063319.GB17749@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20040618014912.O72823@odysseus.silby.com> <20040618.094554.06947940.imp@bsdimp.com> <40D5FD8B.7070407@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:49:42 -0400 To: Scott Long From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: NOTE: RE@ Planning for 4.x, 5.x, and beyond... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:50:29 -0000 At 3:11 PM -0600 6/20/04, Scott Long wrote: > >Stability in 4-STABLE has been pretty fast and loose over the years. >Most of this is because 5-STABLE has been so long in coming, so I >don't blame the changes that have happened. > >HOWEVER.... > >I plan to start enforcing kernel and userland API and ABI stability >once 5-STABLE happens. This _doesn't_ mean that the branch will be >locked down and that it's time for everyone to go off in a huff and >claim that they won't be able to fix bugs. What it _does_ mean is >that changes that affect API/ABI stability and/or user experience >will need some form of justification. That justification might >include POSIX compliance, security vulnerability, etc. Adding to >the API via added library functions, new optional program flags, >etc, will pretty much be fair game. The point is that there will >be a little more review and oversight going on so that 5-STABLE >can actually be advertised as being 'stable'. Along with that, >the 6-CURRENT cycle is going to be defined so that it doesn't >take 5 years like the 5-CURRENT cycle. These are things that >will be heavily discussed at the DevSummit, so I encourage those >with an opinion on this to participate in that. > >Scott This is good to know. (and therefore I am repeating it just to put it under on a somewhat more noticeable Subject... :-) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA