Jon Noack wrote:
Eli Dart wrote:And bugs have been found since that time. We need more time and testing before anything should be backported to -stable.
Careful there.....one major reason I use FreeBSD is that, compared with the other operating systems I can use, major breakages are rare.
I expect the policy that prevents you from deploying the most featureful OS available is there to avoid the late-night pain required to run the latest and greatest features in production.
It would be a shame if stability were lost in a rush for new
features. If smarter people than I feel that SACK should be
backported, great. However, I for one greatly appreciate the
commitments to stability and POLA that are so much a part of FreeBSD.
From the Release Engineering document:FreeBSD-CURRENT is the "bleeding-edge" of FreeBSD development where all new changes first enter the system. FreeBSD-STABLE is the development branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT and have been thoroughly tested by our user community.
These types of backports happen all the time, and having another person to share the load is not a bad thing. Active maintenance of RELENG_4 is good for everyone, and those interested most likely have stability as their first priority anyway (because otherwise they wouldn't be using RELENG_4).
Regardless, the original work was done on RELENG_4 and ported to -CURRENT:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2004-June/025956.html
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
