From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Jan 18 14:28:34 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FA137B401 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B75443F65 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:28:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.6/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0IMSTIx077144; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:28:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h0IMREQ8077121; Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:27:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 14:27:13 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Sam Leffler Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. Message-ID: <20030118222713.GI70151@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Sam Leffler , arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <14715.1042634253@critter.freebsd.dk> <19a601c2bccf$1fdf3850$5a557f42@errno.com> <20030118221308.GH70151@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030118221308.GH70151@dragon.nuxi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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