:I wonder if it would be too radical to suggest that the release cycle for
:4.0 be *much* shorter than the 3.0 cycle. Maintaining two branches gets
:worse and worse as time goes on and it just becomes a waste of programmer
:time. If we are reasonably careful with the 4.0 tree, I think a 4.0
:release could be branched off it after 3.2 or maybe 3.3.
:
:It seems to me that merging a complex set of changes (such as the VM fixes
:or the new-bus work) from 4.0 to the 3.x branch would tend to produce a
:system which was less stable than the 'natural' environment for the
:software which is being merged across.
:
:--
:Doug Rabson Mail: [email protected]
:Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037
I think the existing release schedule is pretty good. Any faster and
we might as well not have two branches at all. We really need a
-current branch in order to make and test radical changes, and the
companies & people who use FreeBSD need a -stable branch to keep
production boxes up to date without having to bet the farm.
We already have the ability to shortcut certain things simply by
copying them from -current to -stable wholesale after we've determined
their stability under -current. The issue here really is safety. I
know some of you really want some of the things in -current to be
backported into -stable more quickly, but you have to be patient. We
can't compromise -stable's stability by acting too quickly.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[email protected]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
