Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 10:43:22 +0100 From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Takuya ASADA <syuu@dokukino.com> Cc: George Neville-Neil <gnn@freebsd.org>, "soc-status@freebsd.org" <soc-status@freebsd.org>, Kazuya Goda <gockzy@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Weekly status report (27th May) Message-ID: <09CF0C54-41F7-49A8-B92C-3BEF4FBF7A36@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <5054184174934880962@unknownmsgid> References: <BANLkTim=zeRhwGajksbX2fBY9snkcj1h0g@mail.gmail.com> <8259CBF7-B2E6-49C6-A7C4-6682ECBDBB9F@freebsd.org> <5054184174934880962@unknownmsgid>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 Jun 2011, at 10:02, Takuya ASADA wrote: >> When I get some time, probably next week, >> I'll want to run some of this code myself. >>=20 >> Also, though it's probably required, the changes to the mbuf mean = that you cannot >> MFC (merge from current) this code to any older FreeBSD release. If = and when the work >> is done it would only be able to go forwards. >=20 > Is that means it could be merge to next release, but it cannot > backport to older release, am I correct? >=20 > # Is it usual thing to backport new features for older releases > anyway? Probably I don't get understand FreeBSD's developing cycle yet We can probably figure out a way to make required mbuf changes = mergeable, as well as driver KPI changes. However, let's focus on = functionality for now and get to the rest in due course. On the release model thing: yes, it's fairly normal to developer a = feature in -CURRENT, and then merge to a -STABLE branch so that it hits = a point release sooner. We enforce a trickle-back model in almost all = cases though: it's not OK to ship a new feature in 8.4, for example, if = it hasn't gone through 9-CURRENT. (There are some rare exceptions that = arise when you have quite an old -STABLE branch and -CURRENT has = diverged significantly that the proposed enhancements to -STABLE simply = don't apply at all to -CURRENT. For example, when -CURRENT has a new USB = stack and the enhancement is to the old stack). However, when things are = merged back to a -STABLE branch, there are quite tight constraints on = binary compatibility for both userspace and the kernel, so as to avoid = breaking binary-only third-party applications, device drivers, etc. Robert=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?09CF0C54-41F7-49A8-B92C-3BEF4FBF7A36>