Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 23:46:46 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Status of -stable Message-ID: <29476.834043606@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Jun 1996 22:21:36 MDT." <199606060421.WAA24403@rocky.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Anyway, I think -stable is now stable once again. Thanks for posting the summary, Nate - I did indeed fall asleep! Since Nate's already said pretty much everything I would have, let me just add a brief post-mortem on what I've learned from all of this: 1. Merging in CVS when you have many changes is hard. CVS was not designed with that kind of branch support in mind. 2. I'll never try something like that again. :-) Since we can't use CVS to maintain long-term branches, we have to stop doing that. With the next release of 2.1-stable (which will be numbered "2.1.5") the 2.1-stable branch will be dead. We will not resurrect another -stable branch in its place, as previously planned, and all development will take place in -current as it did before. We may do short term branch development leading up to each new release, but nothing like the 15 month run of the 2.1-stable branch! This has simply been a nightmare and -stable has, at most, one or two more months to live. In the short-to-medium term we'll probably go back to our old model of freezing 2.2 periodically and trying to get it released. Should we ever go to another source manager who's initials aren't C-V-S, we can perhaps think about multi-branch support again. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?29476.834043606>