TCP SACK backport to -STABLE

Eli Dart dart at
Wed Aug 25 13:45:36 PDT 2004

In reply to Darcy Buskermolen <darcy at> :

> On August 25, 2004 06:44 am, Marko Zec wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 August 2004 00:15, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > You do know don't you, that if you continue to do these things, you will
> > > be punnished by
> > > getting a CVS commit bit..?
> >
> > Well, I didn't write the code myself, just ported it from -CURRENT. Anyhow,
> > glad to see that people still care about the 4.x branch.
> >
> > Re that commit bit, what kind of commiter would that be who only likes to
> > work on -STABLE? :)
> The kind that would be liked by those who like some of the features of 
> -CURRENT, but  policy won't allow them to put them into production...

Careful major reason I use FreeBSD is that, compared 
with the other operating systems I can use, major breakages are rare.
I expect the policy that prevents you from deploying the most 
featureful OS available is there to avoid the late-night pain
required to run the latest and greatest features in production.

It would be a shame if stability were lost in a rush for new 
features.  If smarter people than I feel that SACK should be 
backported, great.  However, I for one greatly appreciate the 
commitments to stability and POLA that are so much a part of FreeBSD.


> -- 
> Darcy Buskermolen
> Wavefire Technologies Corp.
> ph: 250.717.0200
> fx:  250.763.1759
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 224 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-net mailing list