>     In general I agree with the concept but I think .0 releases have to 
>     have a bit more flexibility, and that 4.0 in particular (due to the 
>     rules change made for the BSDI merger) has to be even more flexible.  

And this is something I can render an opinion on right away:  I disagree.

I want it treated as a full -stable branch, not some weaker derivative,
and I don't think we'll win [m]any friends in the new-4.0 convert camp
if we try to shake things up there, even with it in .0 status and the
BSDi situation.

The reasoning is quite simple:  4.0 turned out to have, in certain production
environments, far less stability problems than 3.4 and that is partially
Matt's fault for fixing things like NFS. :-)

That in turn led to a lot more early-adoption of 4.0 than expected,
and now 4.0 is being treated (and is behaving) like a full-blown
-stable release with lots of good reasons to switch to it.  The whole
dot-zero conservativeness thing was our traditional attempt to put a
happy face on situations that sucked (a .0 release being frail and
buggy) rather than having that be an actual goal.  Now that we've
finally managed to shake off the .0 curse in many respects, I'm firmly
behind the concept of treating it like any other release.

I'm sure that something can be done for the kld compatibility issues
so that you can have your SMP cake and eat it too.  Just give it a bit
more thought. :)

- Jordan

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to