Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:51:01 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "David E. Tweten" <tweten@frihet.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current and -stable mailing lists Message-ID: <l03010d00af53952588d5@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <199703180013.RAA09122@rover.village.org> References: Your message of "Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:05 PST." <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 6:13 PM -0600 3/17/97, Warner Losh wrote: >In message <199703172045.MAA01873@ns.frihet.com> "David E. Tweten" writes: >: My suggestions would be "stable," "current," and "experimental." As I >: understand things, nothing short of a CERT advisory should cause a future >: change to the 2.1 line. That sounds stable to me. The 2.2 line is, and >will >: continue to be the source of "current" releases for some time. The 3.0 >line >: is unlikely to have any releases until it's time to shift 2.1 into >oblivion, >: shift 2.2 into stable, and issue the first 3.0 release in the line. It >also >: makes sense for there to be three e-mail lists, maybe (possibly renamed) >: versions of "stable," "current," and "hackers?" > >Ummm, How about stagnant, stable and current? > >-stable was originally chosen as the name because things were getting >just too unstable in -current and it was supposed to represent a >reliable, safe version to run. Now that 2.2 is out, it should shortly >replace the -2.1.x based -stable with a new 2.2 based -stable. >-stable doesn't mean unchanging, just "ready for prime time." > >2.1.x should be allowed to die quietly once 2.2 has proven its worth. >There is nothing magical about the 2.1.x source base, and it has >become quite musty over the last two years that 2.2 has been under >development. The process of vetting 2.2 will likely take a month or >so due to the extensive testing that happened to the 2.2 release >before it was released. No disagreement here. But I think that most people now realize that there will be three "active" versions rather than just the two for which we have names. As soon as we decide that 3.0 needs to be broken out because someone needs to start the relatively long process involved in the next leap forward with features that will not be part of 3.0, we will again be in the same position. 2.2.x will be the "stable" system and 3.0 will still need testing and polishing. However, the head branch will have moved on to 4.0 and we will be right back where we are now. It bothers me that people are so quick to "write off" a system as soon as it is kicked out the door. I think that such an attitude shows that there is a lack of realization as to the performance level expected of a "real" product. If the attitude continues to be this one whereby a system is discarded just when it reaches the "almost complete" stage, FreeBSD will continue to be viewed as a "hobbyist" system rather than the quality product that many of us want it to be.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010d00af53952588d5>