From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 10 02:36:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D075F16A403; Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:36:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9545A43D46; Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:36:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4893C1113; Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:36:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 21:36:19 -0500 To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-ID: <20060910023619.GA32206@soaustin.net> References: <200609100159.k8A1xAIn089481@drugs.dv.isc.org> <20060909231448.E1031@ganymede.hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060909231448.E1031@ganymede.hub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Mark Andrews , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:36:19 -0000 On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was > that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed > stable ... http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/decision-points.html > but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't > classify as an 'oops' .... You've already made this point -- 3 times. What would you like us to do now, punish the committer? Simply reiterating your criticism and unhappiness isn't going to do anything to fix this problem (for which, of course, a fix has already been made), or the next one(s) either. It was an error, it's been fixed, may I suggest we move on to the next bug? mcl