On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:06:24PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Brett Glass <br...@lariat.net> wrote:
> > At 04:29 PM 12/10/2012, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >
> >> There's politics in every organisation. There are ego clashes in
every
> >> organisation. Sometimes you'll fit in, sometimes you won't. If you
> >> feel there are issues, find people inside the community who you do
get
> >> along well with and talk with them about it.
> >>
> >> It sucks, yes. I'm one of those "shut up and code already" types
and I
> >> deal badly with politics.
> >
> >
> > Me, too. That's why I have been contributing code quietly through
others
> > rather than putting myself out in the front lines.
> >
> > In any event -- back to the original topic -- there should indeed be
better
> > communications between the Release Engineering team and the
community.
> > The time it takes to post updates -- especially as it gets close to
release
> > time -- would be recovered many times over because folks like me
wouldn't
> > have any need to e-mail regarding status and projected schedules.
;-)
>
> I whole-heatedly agree... but I know a little about release
> engineering for a large project, especially when the release team is
> unpaid and has to honor commitments to $real_job. Release engineering
> is very detail-oriented and unforgiving. This is not really
> compatible with part-time work.
>
> The RE must be focused, first ans foremost, on getting a release out
> the door as quickly as possible and not to have any serious problems
> with that release. This makes it very had to pull bakc and make
> announcements or even update posted schedules. That is made even worse
> by hte desire to make such communication accurate or at least useful.
> Since there is a LOT of guessing involved in pulling together a
> release (how long will "Joe" take to fix this problem or why are there
> half a dozen reports of a serious issue with the RC, when no one else
> can reproduce it or even figure out what part of the system is causing
> it), RE folks are usually reticent about trying to give out any
> information since it will most likely be inaccurate.
>
> This is why I accept the line that it will be released when it is
> ready. I really think it's about ready, but not even the head of the
> 9.1 RE team KNOWS when it will be ready, even if the ISO builds are
> started. "There is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip."
I don't remember seeing any updates in e-mail, but the
http://www.freebsd.org/news/2012-compromise.html
url has been updated. Its a litle out of date now (last update about 2
weeks ago), but it does include information on the release of 9.1 and
what
is holding it up (specifically getting a minimal set of packages built).
With the 2 branches tagged (ports and src) it is likely still a matter
of getting stuff built in a known clean environment.
Gary
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"