On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Doug White wrote:
I still hate the way the signal change was handled.
How would you have done it differently? As I understand it, the pain
was more or less inevitable.
Perhaps, but there must be a way to keep gcc from
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Doug White wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999, Doug White wrote:
I still hate the way the signal change was handled.
How would you have done it differently? As I understand it, the pain
was more or less inevitable.
In message 199905021941.paa22...@blackhelicopters.org Dispatcher writes:
: For mission-critical systems, I'm still installing 2.2.8-stable.
And the security officer still back ports relevant patches to
2.2.8-stale. The 2.2.8 - 3.x transition lost support for several
devices (aic being the mostly
#Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
#On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 04:52:58PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
#
# I expect the 3.2 release to be a really good release.
#
#I seem to recall that 2.2.x wasn't even called -stable until 2.2.2.
#That .2 release is exactly where 3.x is right now...
And it wasn't until
And it wasn't until 2.2.5 that I saw an official note saying 2.1.7
users should upgrade now. I won't upgrade my mission-critical
systems until I see a similar notice from Jordan or someone in his
place.
For mission-critical systems, I'm still installing 2.2.8-stable.
And I can only echo
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Dillon [mailto:dil...@apollo.backplane.com]
Sent: 01 May 1999 00:53
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: -stable vs -current (was Re: solid NFS patch #6... )
I expect the 3.2 release to be a really good release.
It is true
On Sat, 1 May 1999 p...@originative.co.uk wrote:
The -stable branch shouldn't have anything done to it, that's my whole
point, we shouldn't be merging stuff back into the -stable branch, only fix
specific straightforward problems that don't require complete
re-engineering.
No new features
point, we shouldn't be merging stuff back into the -stable branch, only fix
specific straightforward problems that don't require complete
re-engineering.
No new features means stagnation in development. It means that someone
coming to FreeBSD and looking for a feature will only find it in
On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 04:52:58PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I expect the 3.2 release to be a really good release.
I seem to recall that 2.2.x wasn't even called -stable until 2.2.2.
That .2 release is exactly where 3.x is right now...
--
This .sig is not innovative, witty, or
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
Well, what it comes down to is the number of developers actively
developing the codebase. We had some truely unfortunate timing with
people leaving and new people coming on, and pieces of the system ( such
as NFS ) that simply were
10 matches
Mail list logo
