Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!vyzynz!news.dacom.co.kr!news.kreonet.re.kr!usenet.etri.re.kr!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!agate!reason.cdrom.com!usenet From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: When is 2.2R due out? Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 16:44:49 -0700 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 41 Message-ID: <318FE071.1CFBAE39@FreeBSD.org> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b2 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) To: Louis Epstein <le@put.com> 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. > 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. > 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. -- - Jordan Hubbard President, FreeBSD Project