From owner-cvs-all  Fri Dec  8  9:20:58 2000
From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec  8 09:20:55 2000
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from lion-around.at.yiff.net (lion-around.at.yiff.net [209.54.21.199])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2A31C37B402; Fri,  8 Dec 2000 09:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from chris@localhost)
	by lion-around.at.yiff.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB8HKlm58125;
	Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:20:47 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from chris@netmonger.net)
X-Authentication-Warning: lion-around.at.yiff.net: chris set sender to chris@netmonger.net using -f
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:20:47 -0500
From: Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>
To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm phys_pager.c
Message-ID: <20001208122047.T90192@netmonger.net>
References: <20001205145908.K8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1001205180108.24320A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <20001205152054.M8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <3A2EFBC4.EE8D90B1@newsguy.com> <20001207173453.A18103@netmonger.net> <3A30A286.30E102EC@newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3A30A286.30E102EC@newsguy.com>; from dcs@newsguy.com on Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 05:57:42PM +0900
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 05:57:42PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> > You've got the right argument, but you've picked the wrong example
> > to apply it to.  There has to be _some_ flexibility in the rules,
> > and it would be hard to find a better example of where "shakeout
> > in -current" has no value.
> 
> It is very, very bad when -stable world breaks. It tarnishes our
> reputation, increases support workload, and make people less confident
> in the process.

I actually agree that he should have waited, since this was not a
critically-needed patch.  But I also think that the way you guys
jumped up his butt was inappropriate.  I think it's the severity of
the reaction to such a small offense that caused this "discussion" to
break out.  "You're both right."

> Perhaps I see the rules in a different light than many others.

Well, you (and others) certainly seem to feel that any breakage in
-stable is a capital offense.  I suppose my take on it is that
-current is different from -stable.  Testing things first in -current
is no guarantee that they will not break when MFCed.  I think of
-current as a testing ground for unusual, incomplete, or otherwise
dangerous ideas, but I also think that -stable needs to have ongoing
development.  Anything that breaks should be minor, and should
be fixed immediately, but I don't see how you can guarantee that
-stable will _always_ work.  In my world, people looking for that
kind of stability should stick to releases.

In any event, as someone who is responsible for only a handful of
lines of code in FreeBSD, I will be quiet now so you can all get back
to making -current work again. :-)
-- 
Christopher Masto         Senior Network Monkey      NetMonger Communications
chris@netmonger.net        info@netmonger.net        http://www.netmonger.net

Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message