From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 3 16:23:05 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E469E106566C for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:23:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612A18FC15 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 16:23:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA3GMmC5032478; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:23:03 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id oA3GMl8o032477; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:22:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:22:47 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <201011031622.oA3GMl8o032477@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, dan.naumov@gmail.com, gljennjohn@googlemail.com In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-fs User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.4-PRERELEASE-20080904 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.5 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:23:03 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: regarding kern/148655 fix for 8.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, dan.naumov@gmail.com, gljennjohn@googlemail.com List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:23:06 -0000 Dan Naumov wrote: > I am not entirely sure why my question was understood as some kind of > aggression, that was certainly not my intention. > > > When is the fix getting backported from -STABLE to 8.1 as an errata fix? > I think this a normal, valid question? By asking "when" you imply that you expect it to be backported. You're not asking for it to be backported. That's a difference. Note that the PR was closed (already two months ago), which usually means that no further merges are planned. If you want the patch to be merged to another branch, like releng/8.1, you should rather ask for it to be merged, not ask "when" it will be merged. The likely answer to the latter might be "never". > > A lot of people cannot and will not update to 8.1 before this is fixed > This is a simple fact. No, it's a guess. How many is "a lot of"? > > and no, "just track -STABLE" is not a valid answer > Just pre-empting the usual expected "just update to -STABLE to get > your fix" responces. This is not a valid solution for a lot of users > out there. I don't think that "a lot of" users of FreeBSD 8.0-Release are booting off a ZFS raidz or mirror (which is officially supported since 8.1 only!) *AND* are unable to update to stable/8 *AND* are unable to wait for 8.2 which isn't that far away in the future. I don't think that issuing a fix for releng/8.1 is really required. Even if it's only a 3-lines patch, making changes to a release branch is a very delicate matter that requires careful testing to make sure that nothing breaks. This is usually only warranted for security issues and critical bugs (like kernel panics) that affect a significant number of FreeBSD users. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "In My Egoistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton