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 means stagnation in development. It means that someone
coming to FreeBSD and looking for a feature will only find it in -current,
which, by virtue of being -current, will have other miscellaneous problems.
This person gets annoyed and leaves.
This is the _LAST_ thing we need right now.
Your idea of -beta is exactly the idea of -stable. If you want something
that is only receiving bugfixes, run 2.2.x. It's in maintanance mode now.
> Then what happens to -stable, is it going to get thouroughly tested with all
> these changes? You're currently treating -stable as a "beta stable" in that
> users who track it are being used as beta testers to find the bugs caused by
> merges from current. There's no track for "really stable" users who want to
> pick up necessary bug fixes.
Gosh, I was under the impression that every FreeBSD user was a beta
tester... :)
It's inevitable that bugs will be found in -stable more quickly than in
-current, simply because -stable has a much larger user base. Just think
back to the days after 3.0-RELEASE and the myriad of bug reports that
suddenly came in because the level of usage for that code skyrocketed.
Alex G. Perel -=- AP5081
al...@iplink.net -=- (work)
ve...@disturbed.net -=- (play)
Disturbed Networks - Powered exclusively by FreeBSD
== The Power to Serve -=- http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
