From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 27 09:34:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15781106564A for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:34:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hm@hm.net.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [187.95.0.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913918FC0A for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:34:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pop1.hm.net.br (pop1.hm.net.br [186.222.208.55]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q1R9Y2GO019802; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:34:04 -0300 (BRT) (envelope-from hm@hm.net.br) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.3 at msrv.matik.com.br X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 msrv.matik.com.br q1R9Y2GO019802 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hm.net.br; s=racoon; t=1330335252; bh=awRlItF+hlHBDjgWxRjLgLJuf0MWnit8TgiwWZUIaJ4=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Jr/JjU+bJD4tQTe3AY0CCng5CsZf2QDz5N8MwD8lnW0YWtvBnMPclpIRb++/WsDy8 NLOBQkHsvMinpGJ52fQjmMUps5efnTo4VaStHzCnwvX2ocdJXhJv3Ur6DCB+fF5/EX eW7dj357/OjssoSmBprQan0wFh9AA+yRhBxoDUAk= Authentication-Results: msrv.matik.com.br; sender-id=pass header.from=hm@hm.net.br; spf=pass smtp.mfrom=hm@hm.net.br Message-ID: <4F4B4E0A.5010009@hm.net.br> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:34:02 -0300 From: H User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <4F46847D.4010908@my.gd> <201202261630.57372.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> <4F4A068B.2090807@hm.net.br> <201202261800.16269.erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> <4F4A254E.60200@hm.net.br> <20120226193816.GB31385@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20120226193816.GB31385@lonesome.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, T_DKIM_INVALID, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2-hm_201202.c X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2-hm_201202.c (2011-06-06) on msrv.matik.com.br Cc: Erich Dollansky , Mark Felder , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD9 and the sheer number of problem reports 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: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:34:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:27:58AM -0300, H wrote: >> it is release engineering who could establish a little bit more >> time between code-freeze and RELEASE > > As you will see from the (very) long discussion that you are about > to read, there has to be a compromise. As it was, the release > process was too long, not too short. > > Yes, we would like to get more testers pre-release, but that seems > to be more easily said than done. Ideas appreciated. > > You will also see in the thread that: > > - it is not possible to release bug-free code, and in fact > > - it is not possible to release code with no regressions > whatsoever > > if you are to ever release anything at all. > > To summarize: yes, we do care: and yes, these are classical > software engineering problems that can only be dealt with, not > solved completely. > well said, of course a dead-line is necessary, as well as pursuing perfection is dangerous matter :) anyway, this thread brought little suggestion or possible solutions but lots of declaration of facts and personal interest on the table IMO such a discussion should be strictly FreeBSD oriented and so I see a or the missing point, a declaration of FreeBSD, what is it, for whom is it and what does it, this statement is nonexistent, or not clear enough. This miss affect not only users opinion but also developers work. furthermore, plans or schedules may be perfect within it's own restrictions, but only as good as the outcome so the outcome must be controlled How? ... setting the goal are you interested in bumping the version number up or do you want to come up with something better than the former version? If yes, what is it? Without goal nobody can deliver predictable and defined results steeling a good comparison from that thread you mentioned, I would say, with the right goal you _CAN_ herd cats, instead of pied pipers put some mice on the street :) again IMO the version number race is suspicious and could(should) be changed into a goal-race, then, when the goal is achieved, the the version number may go up with goal the outcome can be controlled, without it is loose end it should exist a dead-line, but goal-oriented and so should be extendable in case of failure Resuming, I would do - [re]define FreeBSD - setting the next release goal - scheduling - go then accompanying the ongoing work (control), assuring that the sub-projects are within the limits, new ideas only can go into the next schedule, a no-matter-what position of engineering is important of course we deal with FreeBSD source, ports is a different matter and can not be merged tester? I would say it could be easier to have more of them, eventual they are already there, but they are unknown, quiet for certain reasons, language, skills, etc when a problem appears, point of sight is often missing, the user who pops up has a problem, he has no interest in blaming somebody or whatever, he like to solve the problem, so giving advices as RTFM or similar does not help a bit, neither how to use, how to write, how to spell or whatever other personal issue are arising. Most do not come back after RTFM or do not even post because they heard it already once so I would say, it does not matter how wired the PR arrives, it should be handled by same criteria as above. What is the goal? Finding problems in the FreeBSD code. So it does not matter which language the guy talks, if he knows C+/- or whatever bothers you, be smart and find out what the problem is there are several related issues, I would start by splitting the mailing list page on FreeBSD. Confusing for a user, he wouldn't know which list. Directing people on first sight to a general mailing list, perhaps no developers in it, or who has people-skills only and drain the results you want ... under any cost of selfishness before the bullets fly, I am not criticizing anybody, the tech-syndrome is natural, techs and users do not speak the same language, techs always will classify users as stupid and users always will classify techs as arrogant, or at least friction is natural. That is a global unchangeable fact and we have to live with it. So mix it up or separate it in prole of better results. It is very easy, with machines we do it already, we write drivers ... As above, what do you want? More PRs? ok, then again it is answered by the goal you set. Well treated a lot of testers will appear. - -- H -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk9LTgoACgkQvKVfg5xjCDw8tgCfSU/IsV7S22d5AaNKiLYYwh7Z W40An1OKxF2T275x3pMwZBXTFpGYzuBQ =2ucy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----