/etc/libmap.conf MFC?

[Chuck Swiger]

Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
[ ... ]
> I'm still not sure we should be encouraging new features in -STABLE;
> additional hardware support and bugfixes are one thing...

Doesn't the term "MFC" refer to a change or new feature that has already been 
added to -CURRENT, and is under consideration for being backported to -STABLE 
because the change is important, of general interest and utility, etc?

If the question is "when should new features not be merged back into 4.x", my 
response would be that should happen after 5.x is tagged as -STABLE and 5.x is 
being actively recommended for to all users including newbies, not just early 
adopters.  If the concern is "is it better to spend time trying to get 5.x 
-STABLE then it is to spend time on 4.x", well, that makes perfect sense to me.

-- 
-Chuck

PS: What does not make much sense is 'releasing' a 'new version' of software 
which is not intended for the end userbase to actually use.

Attempting to reduce the scope of problems with a .0 release is a noble goal, 
but good intentions can be taken too far.  If a user asks "what version should I 
run" and the answer isn't "the latest release", well, that indicates a problem. 
  If a release candidate isn't expected to be better than the prior numerical 
version for the end users, then the release candidate isn't ready.

Perhaps I'm drifting off-topic a bit, but I remember administering Sun machines 
during the transition from SunOS 4.1.x to what marketting called Solaris 2.x. 
Sun didn't do itself or anyone else a favor with SunOS 5.0 through about 5.5; it 
wasn't until Solaris 2.5.1/SunOS 5.5.1 that Sun's customers got something 
significantly better than a .0 release, or (perhaps arguably) better than the 
prior major version.  That really sucked, people, so please excuse my vehemence.

[ Or don't.  If the comparison between SunOS 5.x and FreeBSD 5.x earns me 
flames, rabid criticism, and the undying emnity of whomever, so be it. :-) ]