Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:26:39 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <3162.858659199@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:36:41 CST." <l03010d00af53b835c5a5@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, I have trouble with the attitude because it indicates that there > is no dedication to the idea that we will ALWAYS try to have a > quality product. It seems that the desire is to replace something > before anyone has demonstrated that there is a better candidate. Uh.. And I think that Richard has also handily missed the real message here. This is not an "attitude" problem, as you seem to love to characterize it, this is an apathy problem. Warner volunteered to play reviewer/committer for -stable months ago, I remember his announcement, and his offer drew a big goose egg zero in response. Look, I have a hard time understanding how you could be so obtuse about this: These are volunteer developers, they will work on the kinds of things that they like to work on, and for many that's not the -stable branch. Some of us developers, myself included, took it upon ourselves to maintain the -stable branch for a very long time (and I'm *still* not done supporting it - a 2.1.7.1 release currently awaiting a merge of Justin's SCSI changes, once David tests them) in response to what we felt to be a customer need. At some point, however, everyone needs to move on and begin looking again to more interesting and rewarding pursuits (in my case, the 2.2 branch. In others', 3.0) lest all enjoyment go out of things. Working on an old code base just isn't a lot of fun, you understand? More disturbing, however, are the implications of Warner's failed attempt to run interferance for changes in a post-2.1.7 world. I think in a project like this one, it's more than fair to say that at some point the "dead branches" need to have user support in order to survive or see key developers more and more involved in supporting past development rather than future improvements (this has happened to commercial efforts, and it has always killed them). When Warner called to FreeBSD's -stable user base for proposed changes to keep the 2.1.x branch alive, however, who showed up? Since you seem to feel so passionately about this, why not do something actually useful about it (hint: this kvetching is not useful, it merely fills my inbox with more bytes) and start pulling bug fixes out of 2.2/3.0 and sending them to Warner? Do it loudly and publically in -stable, enjoining others to assist you in your crusade to bring fresh life to 2.1.x. Start a movement. Plant a tree. Buy municipal bonds. Just do something more constructive, please, if it's actual results in -stable that you're looking for! Thanks! Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3162.858659199>