On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 02:34:03AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> From: "Juha Saarinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Staying *really stable* in FreeBSD
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:00:59 +1200
> 
> > "19.2.2.2. Who needs FreeBSD-STABLE?
> > If you are a commercial user or someone who puts maximum stability of
> > their FreeBSD system before all other concerns, you should consider
> > tracking FreeBSD-STABLE. This is especially true if you have installed
> 
> It's probably time to rewrite that paragraph substantially.  It was
> something of a tactical error to encourage certain interest groups to
> run "work in progress" code, even if that work is very carefully
> bounded and kept "in progress" for the shortest periods possible.
> 
> You just can't have a code base which is actually going places and
> having things actively updated (which is generally a really good idea,
> especially when the updates involved fixing bugs) and also guarantee
> that it's particularly usable for anything.  Whether it builds
> flawlessly without warnings or not, it still represents a fairly
> significant unknown quantity until such time as you've frozen the code
> and spent a few weeks, at minimum, collecting user reports and making
> very carefully selected changes.
> 
> We've also heard any number of suggestions for "fixing" the problem,
> from aggressive automated tagging (which would be tremendously
> expensive with CVS and not fix the "builds but doesn't work" problem)
> to extensive regression test suites that nobody seems to have time to
> actually write.
> 
> As I said at the beginning, perhaps it's time to simply re-write the
> Handbook paragraph which inadvertently "sells" -stable as a solution
> for certain types of problems it was never meant to solve.

Done.

N
-- 
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve             http://www.freebsd.org/
FreeBSD Documentation Project           http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/

          --- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F  94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 ---

PGP signature

Reply via email to