I remember figuring out a few releases ago that most
of the problems occurred with the cdroms, and did not show up
at all for people who were getting source and doing make
worlds.
It's getting increasingly possible to really test a
release, since people can download an iso and bu
+[ Bill Fumerola ]-
| On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
|
| > What I'd propose is one additional "track".
|
| "Branch" is the typical name for these things.
|
| I'll just offer that bitrot is a serious reason why we don't need
| ano
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Forrest W. Christian wrote:
> What I'd propose is one additional "track".
"Branch" is the typical name for these things.
I'll just offer that bitrot is a serious reason why we don't need
another branch.
As for 'missioncritical', we simply call it 'errata'.
--
- bill fume
Hmm, this brings up another interesting question. First, to put this in
context:
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> Actually, the -missioncritical branch is sort of provided for
> now as a function of -previousstable. There are plenty of people still
> running 2.2.x, for example, and you even still occ
Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> > -current (all the latest greatest experimental).
> > -stable (all the latest gretest "Stable" stuff).
> > -missioncritical (conservative release, once a year or so - only bug
> > fixes after release).
>
> Actually, the -missioncritical branch is sort of provided
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> -current (all the latest greatest experimental).
>> -stable (all the latest gretest "Stable" stuff).
>> -missioncritical (conservative release, once a year or so - only bug
>> fixes after release).
>
>Actually, the -missioncritical branch is sort of
Doug White wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, jack wrote:
>
> > Today Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> >
> > > > Our release QA is horrible. Look at what Apple does -- they sit on the
> > > > release candidate for a *month*, with *no changes at all*, before putting
> > >
> > > The problem is that Appl
Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
;->> -current (all the latest greatest experimental).
;->> -stable (all the latest gretest "Stable" stuff).
;->> -missioncritical (conservative release, once a year or so - only bug
;->> fixes after release).
;->Actually, the -missioncritical branch is sort of provided
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jordan K. Hubbard
>
> > Hm, I know few people who think twice before choosing FreeBSD for
> > their needs. They think versions change too fast. For some this is
> > a sign of bad stability (heh...) others just scared of necessity of
> > fol
On 23 Nov 1999, Vadim Belman wrote:
> Kris> Most of the changes are linux-specific, since that's all they have
> Kris> for ppp. There are a few extra features, but I don't think there
> Kris> have been many freebsd-applicable bugfixes.
>
> What makes pppd more preferable than the standa
> At 1:51 PM -0500 1999/11/23, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>
> > Then, may be, that's not what's needed? The
> > 64Mb problems, AFAIR, was only addressed after some magazine benchmarked
> > FreeBSD against Linux on a 128Mb machine and we sucked because we were
> > only us
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 1:51 PM -0500 1999/11/23, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>
> > Then, may be, that's not what's needed? The
> > 64Mb problems, AFAIR, was only addressed after some magazine benchmarked
> > FreeBSD against Linux on a 128Mb machine
Today Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Our release QA is horrible. Look at what Apple does -- they sit on the
> > release candidate for a *month*, with *no changes at all*, before putting
>
> The problem is that Apple also gets people to LOOK at the release
> candidate for that month.
Apple also h
Hi Kris!
On 23 Nov 99 at 21:38, "Kris" (Kris Kennaway) wrote:
Kris> Most of the changes are linux-specific, since that's all they have
Kris> for ppp. There are a few extra features, but I don't think there
Kris> have been many freebsd-applicable bugfixes.
What makes pppd more
Brad Knowles once wrote:
> At 1:51 PM -0500 1999/11/23, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>
> > Then, may be, that's not what's needed?
> > The 64Mb problems, AFAIR, was only addressed after some magazine
> > benchmarked FreeBSD against Linux on a 128Mb machine and we suc
Hi mwlucas!
On 23 Nov 99 at 21:14, "mwlucas" (mwlucas ) wrote:
mwlucas> Hmmm... anyone know a magazine that would be interested in a
mwlucas> send-pr article? My usual market isn't.
I think I have one. But it's in russian and... Well, this is a
topic for advocacy list
At 1:51 PM -0500 1999/11/23, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Then, may be, that's not what's needed? The
> 64Mb problems, AFAIR, was only addressed after some magazine benchmarked
> FreeBSD against Linux on a 128Mb machine and we sucked because we were
> only using 64Mb...
Hi Sam!
On 23 Nov 99 at 20:41, "Sam" (Sam Habash) wrote:
>> When we're already at 4 releases/year, this is indicitive of a problem.
>> People want new releases to fix the bugs in the current release.
Sam> People want new releases to add functionality. Bugfixes happen
Which
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, hometeam wrote:
> I feel most of the time bug fixes are in newer releases...I like the
> stable branch it works well for me...I get souce updates nitely , once
> a month update the bins.Maybe jumping up to 2.3.6 would be
> jumping the gun unless it was a major hole in th
I feel most of the time bug fixes are in newer releases...I like the
stable branch it works well for me...I get souce updates nitely , once
a month update the bins.Maybe jumping up to 2.3.6 would be
jumping the gun unless it was a major hole in the prior version .
I just think 3.3 stable i
> But you raise a good point: are there people tasked with doing
> QA work, or are we relying on users to submit PRs? I've always assumed
> the latter procedure was what was occuring, if not by design, then by
> necessity.
(I use "we" below to mean "the FreeBSD community"; I use FreeBSD, and
wr
21 matches
Mail list logo
