Yes 2.x went on for too long but I was counting 2.2.x as the equivalent of
3.x due to the change in the release schedule (mainly just a change in the
numberring).
The thing that worries me is the bad reputation that comes from releasing
not quite ready releases.
Basically the real way to run FreeBSD is from source ala -STABLE as we
dont have a binary patching system established like the commercial
vendors.
Its argueable that the real FreeBSD is -CURRENT considering there is no
automated method for tracking what hasn't yet been committed to -STABLE.
It seems there is always a mad rush to MFC when -STABLE is about to pop
out another release and this often leads to less than perfect releases and
sometimes downright embarrasing mistakes.
I'm not calling for a years worth of beta testing ala IRIX 6.5 but there
are probably some improvements that can be made to the release system.
After all we dont have to have the latest set of gcc, binutils, etc
whenever a release appears since we have a good ports system.
My first thought would be for cvs to be modified to require tagging of
each commit to -CURRENT with a flag to indicate whether it should be
merged into -STABLE before the next release (maybe it would indicate which
release this change should be in). This will make it easier to process
the backlog and allow a longer testing period for -STABLE before each
release.
I hope this doesn't start too big a thread as I'm rather behind on my
cvs-all mail as it is (methinks those people who read all of current and
cvs-all must have a job that lets them do this during work time or no
wife and kids like myself).
On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, Mark Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 12:34:28AM +1030, Matthew Thyer wrote:
>
> > Consider the 2.2 stream that went through many more releases (counting
> > 2.2.1 -> 2.2.8). Using that yardstick you'd expect 4.0 to stay in
> > development until 3.7 is released. I know 7 releases of the 2.2 stream
> > was considerred a few too many but surely we can hold 4.0 back a bit
> > longer considerring the age of some of the code.
>
> The fact that the 2.2 stream went on for so long was one of the things
> which prompted the change to the way FreeBSD release engineering occurs.
> Continuing to bang on 2.x for, what, 16 minor revisions? was a problem,
> because it held the many improvements in 3.x back from the release
> stream for ages: So long, in fact, that some of the developers who had
> been working on them decided to leave for greener pastures where their
> code would actually see the light of day.
>
> Bear in mind the difference between 4.0-RELEASE and 4.1-STABLE too:
> 4.0-RELEASE will be for "early adopters" anyway.
>
> - mark
>
>
--
/=======================================================================\
| Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\=======================================================================/
"If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved
quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum of some
larger space in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the
question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our
Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."
E. P. Tryon from "Nature" Vol.246 Dec.14, 1973
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
