:Well, I used to run -CURRENT in a commercial environment :-)
:
:And I got bashed here and elsewhere for doing it too.
:
:But, with the exception of some really egregious fuck-ups (on both my part
:and those of people who committed shit that didn't work AT ALL) it was, by
:far, the better option of those available.
:
:For quite some time there were special "hacks" that I had (primarily
:consisting of grabbing older versions of this module or that) to get
:around stupidities that were in the process of being resolved, and there
:were always things that I disabled or just didn't do because I knew they
:were broken.
This was an unfortunate consequence which I take partial blame for
in my little corner of the system -- but only partial blame. It was
hard enough getting my stuff into -current with all the extra requirements
core forced onto me, I didn't want to have to go through the same hell
to get it MFC'd into -stable as well. At one point at the beginning,
before the shit began to fly, I was actually considering only doing it
for -current but as more and more bugs were found it became clear that
if the stuff didn't get MFC'd into -stable soon it wouldn't at all.
By that time the shit was already flying and I just didn't want to
double it. Maybe 80% of the bug fixes have been MFC'd -- the ones that
were easy to fix. The other 20% can't be MFC'd without the rest of
the infrastructure in 4.x to support them.
I hope the same thing will not repeat for 4.x/5.x, even without an
enforced stabilizing period between 4.0 and 4.1 prior to branching
off. However, I think that an enforced stabilizing period where
*everyone* is concentrating on 4.1 for a couple of months would be
extremely good for the project.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
