From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jul 20 0:58:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from 2711.dynacom.net (2711.dynacom.net [206.107.213.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE8A37BBFE; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:58:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kstewart@urx.com) Received: from urx.com (dsl1-160.dynacom.net [206.159.132.160]) by 2711.dynacom.net (Build 101 8.9.3/NT-8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA01307; Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:58:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3976B127.9E42BC4E@urx.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:58:31 -0700 From: Kent Stewart Reply-To: kstewart@urx.com Organization: Dynacom X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Udo Schweigert Cc: Kris Kennaway , Gavin Cameron , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What does -RC mean? was: Re: Stable broken References: <3976A60C.BE9DE986@urx.com> <20000720093305.A367@alaska.cert.siemens.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Udo Schweigert wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 00:11:08 -0700, Kent Stewart wrote: > > > > > > Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Gavin Cameron wrote: > > > > > > > >From a cvsupped stable this morning I'm getting the following error in > > > > /sbin/ipf > > > > > > Yes, and if you'd been following -stable you'd have saved yourself the > > > trouble. I've committed one more patch which I hope will fix things now > > > (for the record, it wasn't me who broke all this ;-) My buildworld is > > > still underway, so I won't be sure for an hour or so. > > > > I thought the whole world was follow you all. Everytime you thought it > > was fixed all of the US cvsup sites that I use hit their limit :). I > > had never been rejected by cvsup7 until tonight. > > > > This is due to the fact that the in ports tree the tag RELEASE_4_1_0 has > been added and so cvsup takes much longer since each file in the ports tree > has to be changed. It did jump from 5 or 6 minutes to 20+. > > Anyway: it is a little bit annoying that the -stable branch keeps to be broken > especially since it is labeled as a "release candidate" (4.1-RC). To my > understanding a "release candidate" should only be changed if serious problems > are detected (and not, for example, to bring in ipfilter update to -current and > -stable at the same time, without testing period in -current). I thought having > a release candidate should ensure that the final release is as stable as can be. > Every change to the release candidate would normally result in a restart of the > testing period. There were a couple of concurrent failures. The ipfilter problem wasn't seen on my end until nametoaddr.c was fixed. We found nametoaddr.c was broken almost 24 hours ago. Messages popped up separated by 4 minutes. It was fixed this morning about 8 hours later and then ipfilter hit. I guess the code freeze time has been reached now and we can see what we have. My first buildworld just finished. Now, I will see what my buildkernel does. Kent > > Other oppinions out there? > > Regards > -- > Udo Schweigert, Siemens AG | Voice : +49 89 636 42170 > ZT IK 3, Siemens CERT | Fax : +49 89 636 41166 > D-81730 Muenchen / Germany | email : ust@cert.siemens.de > PGP-2/5 fingerprint | D8 A5 DF 34 EC 87 E8 C6 E2 26 C4 D0 EE 80 36 B2 > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kbstew99@hotmail.com http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/ Bomber dropping fire retardant in front of Hanford Wild fire. http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/bomber.jpg To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message