Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:13:20 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r234504 - in head/sys: amd64/conf i386/conf Message-ID: <20120421191320.GA57272@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120421171128.GA6732@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <201204202137.q3KLbhNj056524@svn.freebsd.org> <CAFMmRNy6Ew_A1%2BCAq5Off%2BNxYxEMBHs8ZgfyG7pvVbbR9sCk7Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120421171128.GA6732@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 12:11:28PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 09:45:57AM -0400, Ryan Stone wrote: > > Excellent! Thanks to everybody who helped make this happen, starting > > with the participants at dtrace.conf who gave us the requisite whacks > > with the clue-by-four. > > > > However, what is our policy for enabling features in -STABLE that are > > known to be unstable? If we MFC this I don't have the slightest worry > > that somebody might see instability in their system just because the > > hooks are all of a sudden there, but I would worry that somebody make > > take DTrace hooks being enabled in GENERIC on -STABLE to imply that > > DTrace is stable, start using it and being upset when they trip over a > > DTrace bug. > > I think we should note that it remains experimental and somewhat buggy > in the release notes and probably in the MFC message. Otherwise, it's > like any new feature. If you start using a feature in production > without extensive testing you may be surprised. I think that given we're just broken 9.x ice, it should be MFCed. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120421191320.GA57272>