Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news2.new-york.net!main.put.com!not-for-mail From: le@put.com (Louis Epstein) Subject: Re: When is 2.2R due out? X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] X-Nntp-Posting-User: le Lines: 51 Organization: Putnam Internet Services Message-ID: <Dr2q51.EEn@news2.new-york.net> References: <4lgt27$rme@church.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <4ljdbg$ng0@uriah.heep.sax.de> <DqI2w3.DyI@news2.new-york.net> <31844830.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org> <DqoIwz.2KC@news2.new-york.net> <31881834.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <DqtDK3.91G@news2.new-york.net> <318C4CA8.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <DqynLn.84G@news2.new-york.net> <318FE071.1CFBAE39@FreeBSD.org> X-Trace: 831537107/17205 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: main.put.com Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 06:31:49 GMT Jordan K. Hubbard (jkh@FreeBSD.org) wrote: : Louis Epstein wrote: : > I run an ISP and would not welcome anything causing downtime,so I am : > more interested in what is stable.But isn't something fully stable : > when it reaches a RELEASE version?My point is that the expected dates : : Well, it's as stable as we knew how to make it at the time of the : release, yes. However, consider what happens afterwards when we find : and fix n number of post-release bugs. In the past, we had "the : patchkit" which sort of broke down under its own weight. In the : present, we have the -stable branch. My point is that we'll always need : a -stable branch of some sort and those running the latest release will : always want to keep an eye on it for in-time bug fixes. But when you've recompiled your kernel for your own system,wouldn't you have to do it over again every time you added the current "-stable"? (Just what does 2.1.1 fix?) : > of 2.1.1R and 2.2R seem to be within a few months of each other. : : And those dates aren't really important (they could be on the same *day* : in our scenario) since each release is targetted at a different market. : Yes, we'll certainly do our very best to make 2.2-RELEASE as stable as : we can make it, and that release won't happen until the confidence level : in 2.2 is high, but there will still remain a large number of people who : don't *want* to upgrade to the first "dot-zero" release of 2.2, no : matter how stable we say it is. They'll prefer to hang back with 2.1.x : until 2.2 has been out for awhile and has had substantial bug fixes of : its own in place. At that stage, I would also hope that 2.1-stable will : essentially die out with 2.1.x (where x = 2 or 3) as a capstone and : people will have enough confidence in 2.2.x (where x will be 1 or 2) to : make the shift. Wasn't 2.1 supposed to be the bug-fixed 2.0.5 already?? : : > Are you in fact expecting to maintain separate release versions of both : > 2.1.x and 2.2.x branches with only the former being stable?Or will 2.2 : > be the stable branch when its release version comes out? : : That was my plan before, but I've since reconsidered whether it would be : wise to shift -stable over to 2.2 that soon. I would prefer to shift : -stable over ONLY after I'm really very very confident that all the : features of 2.2 work properly and have been shaken out in release form. So it will be released before it's stable. What does this mean to the Walnut Creek CD-ROM subscriber?The mid-year disk will be a 2.1.1,the end-year 2.2?Will stuff go out that people will be advised against installing?