Richard Caley wrote: > > > I think the best thing is to keep things as simple as possible. > > But no simpler. > > > I personally think that a fix should always be a fix > > that is like saying a cure for cancer should be a cure for > cancer. Fine.
It wouldn't be called a cure for a cancer otherwise). > How do you know it is a cure and how do you know what > the side effects will be. I think the answer is obviously, long time testing and monitoring. > If life could ever be that simple we wouldn't need _any_ branches. So lets not make any other sub-branches of branches and patches to comlicate things even further. > A lot of testing goes into what becomes a release. People using the > RELEASE branch have a reasonable expectation that it will have been > tested to that standard. That amount of testing can't be done for > every fix applied to the STABLE branch. Occasionally there will be a > fix which will break something else that no one thought to > test. > > Basicly, you can't have somethign which is stable and which gets fixed > quickly, the two aims are in opposition. But you can have a -STABLE that is reliable and *critical* patches are applied quickly. I believe that this is what mostly this thread is about. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
