On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Sean Davis wrote:

> > > I still fail to see the point in releasing broken code.
> >
> > This is a long-since-ignored argument.  If broken code were never released,
> > there would never be a release.
>
> I'm less concerned with the fact that a release might (will) have bugs
> than the fact that it takes so long to get from the initial branching
> to release - an every-two-years release cycle is very embarrassing,

[with introspective NetBSD hat on, paying homage to the Zucker brothers]

"We're familiar with it."

[with hat removed]

Basically, this is a really bad, known problem that releng has been trying
to fix for some time.  Sure, there's an intellectual tug-of-war at times
between people with different opinions on how "stable" the system is wrt
releaseability.  Much of that had to do with the fact that a cyclic, formal
releng process didn't really exist until 1.6.  Even then, the releng team
itself didn't get much pull with the rest of the development team until well
into the 2.0 branch.

2.0 also had its own share of interesting technical problems on that front
that would take forever to describe here, but I do believe that The NetBSD
Foundation as a whole is hoping not to repeat that in the future, with 3.0
and beyond.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>