Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 3 Apr 2007 07:44:31 -0300
From:      JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br>
To:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Cc:        Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
Subject:   Re: ipfw add pipe broken?
Message-ID:  <200704030744.31905.joao@matik.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <200704030853.l338rXZD050252@lurza.secnetix.de>
References:  <200704030853.l338rXZD050252@lurza.secnetix.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 05:53, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Well, FreeBSD is mostly a volunteer project, so people work
> on it when they have time.

we all know that, we could discuss the general issue deeply which might be=
=20
usefull but might be misunderstood by people, anyway I like to answer your=
=20
points but first I like to make clear that this is NOT a personal issue and=
 I=20
am not angry with Julian or anyone else, it is merely the issue itself so I=
=20
hope you're all cool with this and nobody starts yelling.

>
> Admittedly, you're right that any changes should be tested.
> But in reality it's not always that easy.  Some changes are
> complex so that not all possible things can be tested.  And

I do not agree with "can not be tested", this was eventually ok in 97's ipf=
w=20
code ...

> some changes _seem_ trivial and obviously don't need to be
> tested (especially if a nearly identical change ran for
> months in -current), but then that might turn out to be a
> mistake.  Errare humanum est.  (Translation: shit happens.)
>

;) thanks for the latin translation but of course it happens, but is not th=
e=20
point


>  > please do it all or don't do it, ipfw is an mature and essential part
>  > where we do not espect such sudden surprises in releng6 to happen
>
> First, if you absolutely don't want surprises, then you
> should run RELENG_6_2, not RELENG_6.  If you run RELENG_6,
> you should be prepared and able to deal with breakages.

ok, as you say shit happens but we should be aware of where it happens, som=
e=20
exotic driver or hardware, let's say here sk,nve or re - ok, BUT ipfw=20
certainly is not experimental code and do not depend on hardware as long yo=
u=20
have any which runs fbsd

> (Even if it's unusual that RELENG_x breaks, it does happen
> sometimes.  The FreeBSD Handbook chapter "staying stable"
> contains appropriate warnings.)

like I said before, the playground is CURRENT for this and you talk about t=
he=20
handbook, then let's read all: "... the general assumption that they have=20
first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for testing ..." (I guess this is meant for=
=20
new code but law for mature code)

this assumption is important because it is kind of rule, common sense like =
=20
speeding a Ferrari over a bumpy street it might break but a Fiat not, so th=
is=20
would not be a suprise but cooking the motor at 80mph on a highway is not t=
he=20
thing we need to be prepared for and is certainly a bad thing where the car=
=20
maker should look at before releasing it

and so I feel right to say, essential and mature code *needs* to be tested=
=20
extensively before committing it, exotic or new code not
This makes more sense today as FreeBSD has an important position, but not o=
nly=20
has it but also has to defend it. This makes it necessary that the common=20
sense of responsibility "is there" and this is the next assumption, a=20
comitter should have this responsibility. (which certainly does not exclude=
=20
the risc of errors, but reduce it)
Also no secret and common sense is that releng_6 is widely used on producti=
on=20
servers. So ipfw is not supposed to be broken.

My personal suggestion is that certain code like ipfw needs to be marked fo=
r=20
double check, so there should be one other responsible reviewing AND testin=
g=20
it before comitting it, this probably is the only way to prevent or reduce=
=20
the error rate

>
> And second, it's not a big deal to go back to Friday's
> sources until Julian had time to fix the issue, is it?

no it is not but it is not the point

thank's
=2D-=20

Jo=E3o







A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik  https://datacenter.matik.com.br



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704030744.31905.joao>