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

[Anton - Valqk]

Robert Watson wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I totally agree with that point,
just commented that it's been year(s) since its appearence an maybe not 
enought effort in it (just an outsider thought, can't know if it is) and 
the fueature is a really really great and nice one!

> Robert N M Watson
> Computer Laboratory
> University of Cambridge
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.