Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:49:13 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r220982 - in head: . sys/amd64/conf sys/arm/conf sys/conf sys/i386/conf sys/ia64/conf sys/mips/conf sys/mips/malta sys/pc98/conf sys/powerpc/conf sys/sparc64/conf sys/sun4v/conf Message-ID: <4DB40E39.5090905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104241156590.36270@fledge.watson.org> References: <201104240858.p3O8wwqT024628@svn.freebsd.org> <77FE817D-D548-4B79-A64B-C890D94323B9@FreeBSD.org> <4DB40026.5030405@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104241156590.36270@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24.04.2011 14:00, Robert Watson wrote: > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011, Alexander Motin wrote: >>> Are you going to address that on updating magic will make it work >>> within the next 2-4 weeks? >> >> s/ad[0-9]+/ada0/ should fit 90%. A bit more sophisticated script >> should fit most. In what place should I put that magic? >> >>> If you will not then thanks for screwing 50% of our users and please >>> back this out again. >> >> Reverting is not an option. _Constructive_ propositions are welcome. > > It is the policy of this project that the release engineering team has > final authority over what ships in a release. It is entirely within > scope to revert this change for 9.0 if issues with the upgrade path are > not addressed. My hope also that this path can be entirely avoided > through a rapid addressing of upgrade path issues that have been known > (and discussed on the mailing lists extensively) since you posted about > the work on the public mailing lists. > > I agree with Bjoern that it is critical to address these issues in a > timely manner -- our users depend on reliable and easy upgrades, and it > seems (on face value) that significant work remains to be done to make > that possible. Our release is increasingly close, and it's important we > keep the tree as stable as possible so that merges of other straggling > features can go uneventfully. I am asking for excuse if my tone was overly strict. It was not my real intention to offend anybody. May be inside I am indeed overreacting a bit on proposition to revert with no alternative things that I have put my heart into, which are broadly accepted by users, which I announced on the list few days ago and got no objections. I am sorry for that. I do worry about possible complications during migration process. And obviously this is not an easy question, as soon as it wasn't solved during so much time. I will gladly accept any help or real ideas people can provide. I just don't like to feel it my own problem. I am not doing it for myself. It would be nice to see some friendly support instead. Thank you. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DB40E39.5090905>