CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

Robert Watson rwatson at
Wed Jun 11 15:49:51 UTC 2008

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Anton - Valqk wrote:

> I fully agree with the lines below.
> As noticed below there is more attention to developing new features,
> than making releases rock solid stable.
> Ah, another thing,
> I'm waiting for virtualization networking layer for jails for quite long.
> I've tested it on a test server, worked perfect, but on production I don't 
> want to patch my base.
> there are few other features to jals that never got commited in base, and as 
> I said I don't want to patch it...

The reason that the virtualization patches aren't in the tree is precisely 
*because* we care about stability and are willing to slow down feature 
development in order to accomplish it.  Some features take years to stabilize, 
and just because a patch works OK in your environment doesn't mean it will 
work in everyone's.  Moderating the rate at which we adopt agressive new 
features is part of an intentional strategy to avoid letting development trees 
destabilize to a point where it's unproductive.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list