yeah there are big problem with 'pppd' in 1.5 branch and im sure it spreads
in 1.6 as well:)
im defenately continue to use 1.5 branch on mu servers!

Greetings

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Rauch" <rauch@rice.edu>
To: <netbsd-help@netbsd.org>; <tmueller@bluegrass.net>;
<jeffrey@jeffreyf.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: USB Zip 100 Drive


> Re. http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-help/2002/06/09/0004.html
>
> If I recall correctly, 1.4.3 was released *after* 1.5 was released.
>
> The thing to understand is that development isn't linear.  There is on the
> one hand fixing bugs (what the 3rd digit represents, essentially).  On the
> other hand, there's adding features (which necessarily introduces new
> bugs); this is the middle (or maybe even someday the first) digit.
>
> As I understand it, a new ``major'' release represents everything that is
> presently in -current.  It gets stabilized, built for many platforms,
> tested, fixed up (and maybe some of it pruned, conceivably?), then it is
> released.  The ``minor'' (or ``patch'') releases are fixes for a past
> release.
>
> So why continue work on 1.5.x when 1.6 is just around the corner?
>
> Because 1.5.x isn't perfect.  Many people will continue to use the
> well-shaken-out 1.5.x rather than switch to 1.6 with fresh bugs.
>
> For me (and perhaps you) 1.6 will be a natural choice when it's available
> (I may have time to test a snapshot or two, but I am not presently set up
> for cleanly installing test versions to play with).  For people running
> production servers that have to work reliably and consistantly, a more
> conservative 1.5.x makes more sense until the 1.6 release matures a bit
> and (inevitably) has a patch release or two to fix the almost-certain bugs
> that will be turned up once it's in widespread use.
>
> (As an example, 1.4 involved replacing the virtual memory system.  1.4,
> proper, crashed a lot for me.  1.4.1 came out *very* quickly and fixed the
> problems that I was seeing.  That's okay (not great, but okay) for a home
> system.  For a production server, though, it would be terrible.  Had those
> crashes happened during testing, 1.4 would surely have had them fixed,
> rather than requiring 1.4.1 so quickly after.)
>
> If I were running a system for other people, I'd be much more cagey about
> *any* major new release of *any* product---even NetBSD.  (^&
>
>
> That, at least, is how I understand the picture.
>
>
>   ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu
>
>
>