Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:27:13 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. Message-ID: <20030118222713.GI70151@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030118221308.GH70151@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <14715.1042634253@critter.freebsd.dk> <19a601c2bccf$1fdf3850$5a557f42@errno.com> <20030118221308.GH70151@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:13:08PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:48:49AM -0800, Sam Leffler wrote: > > You and I talked about this briefly so I'll just voice my opinion publicly. > > I believe changes of this sort should wait until _after_ 5.1 is cut. This > > assumes that 5.1 is the "performance and stability" release that compels > > people to move production machines to a 5.x code base. > > Relative to your view, where would the RELENG_5 branch (ie, 5-STABLE) be > cut? To possibly make the conversation go faster; I'll assume the answer is we branch RELENG_5 at 5.1-RELEASE. f Let me preface this by saying I highly value and respect your opinions. The problem is making only the minimal change before the RELENG_5 branch point will really make MFC'ing harder. We had a disaster with 4-CURRENT and RELENG_3 in which we could not MFC critical kernel fixes. The Project (as we operate) learned a hard lesson, and I would just like to remind people of that. I would like to see a patch from PHK that implements his preference. Some of us could run that to gain some insight into this issue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030118222713.GI70151>