Re: why 4.X instead of 5.X

[Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

:If nothing else, it has the older gcc so buildworlds will go
:faster...  :-)   </joke>
:
:I like the idea of starting out with the very-stable branch
:(both abi and api), even though there are some things about
:5.x that I would miss.  5.x is still very much a rapidly
:moving target.  He couldn't go with 5.0 for sure (too many
:problems), and even 5.1 was shaky.  By going with the very
:stable branch, it will be much easier to re-sync userland
:when it's time to.  It should also be easier to pull in any
:critical security fixes, should something pop up.
:
:-- 
:Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad@xxxxxxxxxxx

   That is my feeling.  Most of the initial work I did prior to the 
   announcement was as much to prove to myself that I could start with
   a 4.x base.  There were a couple of days where I almost didn't think
   I could do it, changing procs to threads in VFS and fixing ucred was
   a nightmare!  But I buckled up and slogged through it.  Getting that
   all done and the light weight kernel threading system actually working
   proved it out for me and I am now *very* comfortable with using 4.x
   as a base.  I believe I have made the right choice.  Even if 5.x were
   more stable the mutex model it uses is so complex that ripping it out
   (and stabilizing what was left) would have taken far longer.

						-Matt