On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:06:24PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Brett Glass <br...@lariat.net> wrote: > > At 04:29 PM 12/10/2012, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > >> There's politics in every organisation. There are ego clashes in every > >> organisation. Sometimes you'll fit in, sometimes you won't. If you > >> feel there are issues, find people inside the community who you do get > >> along well with and talk with them about it. > >> > >> It sucks, yes. I'm one of those "shut up and code already" types and I > >> deal badly with politics. > > > > > > Me, too. That's why I have been contributing code quietly through others > > rather than putting myself out in the front lines. > > > > In any event -- back to the original topic -- there should indeed be better > > communications between the Release Engineering team and the community. > > The time it takes to post updates -- especially as it gets close to release > > time -- would be recovered many times over because folks like me wouldn't > > have any need to e-mail regarding status and projected schedules. ;-) > > I whole-heatedly agree... but I know a little about release > engineering for a large project, especially when the release team is > unpaid and has to honor commitments to $real_job. Release engineering > is very detail-oriented and unforgiving. This is not really > compatible with part-time work. > > The RE must be focused, first ans foremost, on getting a release out > the door as quickly as possible and not to have any serious problems > with that release. This makes it very had to pull bakc and make > announcements or even update posted schedules. That is made even worse > by hte desire to make such communication accurate or at least useful. > Since there is a LOT of guessing involved in pulling together a > release (how long will "Joe" take to fix this problem or why are there > half a dozen reports of a serious issue with the RC, when no one else > can reproduce it or even figure out what part of the system is causing > it), RE folks are usually reticent about trying to give out any > information since it will most likely be inaccurate. > > This is why I accept the line that it will be released when it is > ready. I really think it's about ready, but not even the head of the > 9.1 RE team KNOWS when it will be ready, even if the ISO builds are > started. "There is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip."
I don't remember seeing any updates in e-mail, but the http://www.freebsd.org/news/2012-compromise.html url has been updated. Its a litle out of date now (last update about 2 weeks ago), but it does include information on the release of 9.1 and what is holding it up (specifically getting a minimal set of packages built). With the 2 branches tagged (ports and src) it is likely still a matter of getting stuff built in a known clean environment. Gary _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
