On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Matthew Reimer wrote: > :> Great work guys! It almost seems that -current is more stable than > :> -stable! > :> > :> Matt > : > :Funny you should mention it. I've heard this from a number of people over > :the last week.. One has even suggested using a particular known-good 4.0 > :snapshot in preference to a 3.1-stable for a production system...... > : > :Cheers, > :-Peter > > I think that people should stick with 3.x unless there is something in > -current that they really need such as the fixed NFS. current's core is > very solid now and getting better, but a lot of the peripheral stuff > has undergone rapid change. The new bus structure, the new compiler, the > kernel build setup, configuration changes, and so forth. It's hard > to keep up with it. I expect it will settle down in the next month or so. > > Most of the bug fixes have been backported to -stable. Getting the new > VM system into -stable ( which I want to do just after the 3.2 release ) > is going to require brute force, though. Unfortunately, the most recent > fixes to NFS fall into that category so NFS-centric installations may need > to use -current.
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: d...@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
