# # CC list trimmed a bit... # Thanks, sorry, I didn't mention.

# > if the feature mentioned is "new" -- than -stable can't be # > officially called "stable" any more. If it isn't -- why waste # > time of those great guys who are making FreeBSD? Donate your # > own time to do testing if you want to get more # > features, isn't it Ok? # # The whole idea of this statement was quite simple I think - that the # core-team wouldn't waste their time on -stable, but would just suggest # that a given feature (I don't mean this kernel or userland patch or # other) should be brought over to -stable. After which the person (or # persons) would do it in their own time. The things wouldn't be new (but # already somewhat tested out in -current) and certainly nothing would be # commited before it has been tested out.

No, I meant that anything more than a "simple bugfixes" as a post-release branch will take way more efforts from the men who are actually taking care of that source tree. What for if nobody pays? This isn't "fun", as many persons already mentioned.

And if you, an me, and whoever else, overall -- more than a half of the FreeBSD user community, 2/3 probably -- will spend time on backporting features from -current to "stable", who on the Earth will do a thorough testing of -current itself? The overall progress of FreeBSD will be slowed down, 'cause no way for -current to become really stable and clean until "-stable" is alive.

That's what I meant.

--

With best regards -- Andrew Stesin.

+380 (44) 2760188 +380 (44) 2713457 +380 (44) 2713560

"You may delegate authority, but not responsibility." Frank's Management Rule #1.