Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/19 Adrian Chadd > On 19 October 2011 19:38, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=160943 (there is hope) > > or http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=161123 (little hope. it's > not > > me, but there I was noisy.) > > Just send the committer a polite

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/19 Johan Hendriks > Pavel Timofeev schreef: > > I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be> > > longer. Six months, for example.> > New STABLE branch is very important! > > >> So is opening head up to allow developers to work on and commit new> > code. A

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/19 Adrian Chadd > On 19 October 2011 15:42, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > > > =) Thats why we don't have much people in FreeBSD. FreeBSD for users? or > > developers? > > > The big problem is that these conversations are not wanted everyone. > > Nobody cares. For example, Vadim Goncharov wrote

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/19 Adrian Chadd > On 19 October 2011 16:04, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > > > kern/160678? A good example. > > I give 5$ that this fix won't be in 9.0 RELEASE =) > > I know a few other important PRs that won't be in 9.0 RELEASE. > > Thats why I wrote initial email. > > Kirk fixed it in -HEAD.

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

Pavel Timofeev schreef: I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be > > longer. Six months, for example. > > New STABLE branch is very important! > > So is opening head up to allow developers to work on and commit new > code. As with many things in engineering,

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

On 19 October 2011 19:38, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=160943 (there is hope) > or http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=161123 (little hope. it's not > me, but there I was noisy.) Just send the committer a polite, nicely worded email and see if they'll

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

On 19 October 2011 16:04, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > kern/160678? A good example. > I give 5$ that this fix won't be in 9.0 RELEASE =) > I know a few other important PRs that won't be in 9.0 RELEASE. > Thats why I wrote initial email. Kirk fixed it in -HEAD. I hope he'll get it tested and backporte

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

On 19 October 2011 15:42, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > =) Thats why we don't have much people in FreeBSD. FreeBSD for users? or > developers? > The big problem is that these conversations are not wanted everyone. > Nobody cares. For example, Vadim Goncharov wrote big mail with description > of variou

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/15 Thomas Mueller > > MHO different OS releases (Unix or not) are usually at the state of > > FreeBSD current regarding stability. FreeBSD late BETA and early RC > > are usually very stable. Therefore the approximate one month period > > between the first beta and the release is adequate

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/15 Martin Sugioarto > Am Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:55:28 +0400 > schrieb Pavel Timofeev : > > > That's what most people think. > > Hi! > > I'm not thinking this. This is made up by users who only adapt slowly > to changes and features. Look at the whole crowd which got furious about > the new M

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011/10/15 George Kontostanos > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > > That's what most people think. > > > I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be > > longer. Six months, for example. > > New STABLE branch is very important! > > IMHO differen

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

ough to recognize the parallels with humans -- > remarkably few humans are perfect, either, after all. :-} [And yes, I > include myself as "imperfect" -- certainly as long as I'm still > breathing.] > Yes, you're right. > > > Why is it late? I'm t

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

> MHO different OS releases (Unix or not) are usually at the state of > FreeBSD current regarding stability. FreeBSD late BETA and early RC > are usually very stable. Therefore the approximate one month period > between the first beta and the release is adequate time. I see your point, especially

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

Am Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:55:28 +0400 schrieb Pavel Timofeev : > That's what most people think. Hi! I'm not thinking this. This is made up by users who only adapt slowly to changes and features. Look at the whole crowd which got furious about the new Microsoft Office. I tell you, in one year, no on

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Pavel Timofeev wrote: > That's what most people think. > I think we hurry. Imo, BETA/RC period for !NEW! STABLE branch should be > longer. Six months, for example. > New STABLE branch is very important! IMHO different OS releases (Unix or not) are usually at the

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

Hi, On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM, David Wolfskill wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:55:28AM +0400, Pavel Timofeev wrote: >> That's what most people think. > > Could be.  But to the extent that it's true, I have no reason to believe > that it's a perspective that is held uniquely (or even pr

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

s it late? I'm talking about only BUGS (PRs with pathes), not new > features. Let's users test it! In coming BETA/RC. Where are we in a hurry? > The BETAs and RCs exists for finding BUGS in coming RELEASE! It's the only > purpose of it. > Of cause pathes would be commi

x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

atures. Let's users test it! In coming BETA/RC. Where are we in a hurry? The BETAs and RCs exists for finding BUGS in coming RELEASE! It's the only purpose of it. Of cause pathes would be commited after x.0 RELEASE to x.1 STABLE. Because of this situation most people says "x.0 RELASE i