Subject: Re: Am I under attack or what?
To: Mike Long <email@example.com>
From: David Brownlee <abs@NetBSD.ORG>
Date: 01/23/1998 21:03:21
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Mike Long wrote:
> >Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:49:38 -0700 (MST)
> >From: Chris Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Wouldn't it be nice if all the users out there who don't read
> >current-users had some way of knowing what parts of the kernel are stable,
> >and what parts aren't? I certainly don't begrudge the fact that we have
> >unstable pieces of code in the kernel; that's how we get new features.
> >However, there should be some place that we can make notes along the lines
> >of, "This is still experimental." There used to be a lot of those in
> >the (i386) kernel config files for GENERIC, etc. Why were those removed,
> >if the options referred to by those comments are still unstable? An
> >example would be lfs, which I believe is still unstable, but which no
> >longer has the comment after it.
> /usr/doc/BUGS is another good place to include that information.
It should be noted in options.4 and mount_lfs.8 at the very least.
similarly for union mounts...
Anyone care to submit a PR for this?
... and so am I, maybe its the other way round, I can't seem to decide ...