8 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-stableRe: Bringing stuff into 2.1? | From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Nate Williams | Dec 11, 1995 3:09 pm | |
| Jordan K. Hubbard | Dec 11, 1995 6:23 pm | |
| Nate Williams | Dec 11, 1995 10:31 pm | |
| Jordan K. Hubbard | Dec 11, 1995 10:35 pm | |
| Nate Williams | Dec 11, 1995 10:44 pm | |
| David Greenman | Dec 11, 1995 11:19 pm | |
| Jordan K. Hubbard | Dec 11, 1995 11:20 pm | |
| Dmitry Khrustalev | Dec 12, 1995 6:20 am |
| Subject: | Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jordan K. Hubbard (jk...@time.cdrom.com) | |
| Date: | Dec 11, 1995 11:20:15 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-stable | |
But wouldn't it be nice to have a Real(tm) beta-test cycle for once? It appears that we still have problems with stability in 2.1, given the amount of reboots we're seeing, and I'd like to see those resolved. I just started seeing reboots on my 2.1 box which ran the exact same workload under 2.0R with uptimes of 60 and 90 days, and I can't get over a week with it in -stable. I just enabled dumps, so hopefully I can provide more information.
Well, I'm all for fixing the bugs but I don't think that declaring a "beta" will help much. Consider all the time we had between 2.0.5 and 2.1 to shake out the bugs and they clearly still didn't get shaken out. People's tolerance to BETAs seems to have dwindled to the point where I'm lucky if I get 3-4 mails during the BETA cycle. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that declaring a 2-3 week BETA for 2.1.1 is going to net us anything but gratuitous delay.
It's sort of like the 4MB installation problem - the time to start working on it is *now*, not 3 weeks before the release, and the same goes double for any kernel pathogens.
Jordan