On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote:
Tell ya what: try it and see.
First you'll need to get at least one machine from each of our
supported platforms.
Then you'll need to do builds. Then you'll need to test throughly.
Test everything in base against everything else, in all kinds of
strange configurations and with other broken software that people
might be forced to use. And don't forget about all the ports people
use - you could probably spend most of a week just compiling ports. So
much time compiling and testing that you've got no time for
development. There's a reason why we have tree locks and testing
windows and snapshot re-spins before a release... and and you want us
to do this 12 times a year? I assume you've sent a huge donation so we
can have triply replicated build labs and a staff of test engineers to
make it all go...
> From the users' point of view: no need to reinstall at all - while having
Great, so now everyone has to keep track of what goes on in every
monthly release? Sheer lunacy.
"no need to reinstall" - what are you smoking? Are you advocating that
we just magically start replacing binaries on everyones machines or
that people stop upgrading? You're going to have some downtime while
you put new kernels in. Also, this sounds like you haven't ever
actually tried upgrading an openbsd machine. If you get the tarballs
on a local source before you start, it takes just a couple of minutes
longer than the theoretical shortest time possible.
The latest release happens in May and November - makes it really easy
to plan your upgrades. You do have a patch policy for all your
important machines, right? If that's not good enough, then run
current, file good bugs and help test fixes.
--
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
